I’m Going to Be a Lobbyist in My Next Lifetime

I recently returned from a trip to Washington, DC in which I was privileged to be part of the Poker Players Alliance’s (PPA) National Poker Week Fly-In. Part of this event included a gathering of 33 PPA State Directors, a handful of poker celebrities, and various lobbyists and media members. Our goal was to gain support for favorable online poker legislation and specifically for House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank’s HR 2267, which would establish federal licensing and regulation of online poker.

My first impression of Capitol Hill is that I have never seen so many men and women dressed in business attire, scurrying from one building to another, carrying files and folders, all with an agenda to fulfill. The experience of actually seeing our government at work and being part of the process was incredible.

The Fly-In started out with a working dinner at which the participants got a chance to network with each other and hear brief speeches from Alfonse D’Amato, Congressman Robert Wexler, and John Pappas, Executive Director of the PPA.  Afterwards, we were given our meeting schedules for the next two days. My list of appointments included Senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, and Representatives Tim Bishop, Shelley Berkley, Dina Titus, and Lynn Westmoreland. I had been given a list of talking points and became comfortable with them through many role-playing scenarios with Jan Fisher and my brother Rich Plante, who accompanied me on the trip.

At each of our meetings, we were taken into an office or small boardroom and allowed to make a presentation about why we believe that online poker should be completely legal, licensed, and regulated in the United States. Most times, there was a lobbyist with us and two or more PPA representatives present. I actually preferred the meetings without a lobbyist, as this gave us more time to personalize our stories and yet were still able to present the persuasive positive points about our position.

Here are some of the facts we presented in our meetings to encourage support of HR 2267:
1. More than 10 million Americans play online poker.
2. If online poker sites were licensed, American citizens would be protected from scam artists who don’t operate their sites with integrity. In addition, we would have legal recourse in U.S. courts if problems occurred.
3. Studies show that approximately $3.3 billion in tax money would be raised annually if online poker were regulated.
4. HR 2267 would provide effective protection to keep underage children from gambling online.
5. HR 2267 provides help to compulsive gamblers.
6. 75% of Americans oppose a ban on internet poker.
7. Poker is a game of skill. State courts in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Colorado have recently come to this conclusion.
8. Licensing and regulating online sites would create jobs. I know many people who lost their jobs as marketing directors and party planners when the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed.

We also made personal pleas to Senators, Congressmen, and staffers. For instance, I brought up how embarrassing it is that in the “Land of the Free,” we don’t have the same right to fund an online poker account and play in our own homes that citizens of most other countries in the world have. I also brought up the fact that my brother, who lives in Utah where there are no casinos, will eventually have to leave his home state if he wants to play poker unless we get the law changed. There are millions of physically-challenged and infirmed citizens who aren’t able to travel to a casino to play poker. Instead, playing online in their homes can bring them happiness in an otherwise depressing, painful life.

I believe that we helped sway opinions in a positive way through our Congressional meetings. Lots of questions were asked and answered that made it obvious that licensing and regulation is the best way to go regarding online poker. Since the Fly-In, three members of Congress (Representatives Linda Sanchez, John Conyers, and Mike Thompson) have signed on to co-sponsor HR 2267, bringing the total to 51. Many more will follow suit… it only makes sense!

The trip wasn’t all business, though; we had some time for fun in between our meetings. A special treat was lunch at the Pentagon in the Army Executive Dining Room hosted by a Brigadier General friend of mine. After lunch, we were given a tour of the 9/11 Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.

I also got to play in a charity poker tournament along with 35 patients from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Celebrities in attendance included Andy Bloch, Annie Duke, Jan Fisher, Howard Lederer, Dennis Phillips, Montel Williams, and members of Congress and their staff. The PPA donated $25,000 to seed the effort and another $10,000 was raised through rebuys, bounties, and donations. My trip to Washington, DC was truly a top-ten event in my life.

***

Linda,
Nice job. Thank you so much for your efforts. You covered all the primary points that legislators need to be aware of.

There is one more factor that may sway some who are still “on the fence;” taking note of the stakes levels that are routinely played.

There may be a misperception about who is playing poker online and the stakes they are playing for. TV, our good friend in promoting poker, may be presenting a distorted picture of who is playing and what kinds of risks they are actually taking. You hear this when various anti-poker politicians talk about how they worry that people would routinely be putting their economic futures at risk if online play were legalized.

As it is, the overwhelming proportion of players only play at the microstakes levels. They enter games with less money than it takes to buy a hot dog at a baseball game. There is precious little financial risk in these games.

It is easy to see this. Just for fun, I scrolled over the NLH games in progress at Poker Stars. Here are the numbers of tables in action at each of the levels.

$25/$50(and higher)…. 2 tables
$10/$20….. 6 tables
$5/$10……28 tables
$3/$6…….26 tables
$2/$4…….72 tables
$1/$2…..201 tables
$.50/$1…..496 tables
$.25/$.50…..456 tables
$.10/$.25…..696 tables
$.05/$.10…..516 tables
$.02/$.05…..288 tables
$.01/$.02…..576 tables

The game is played, as you noted, mainly for recreation and amusement by people who prefer this kind of competitive interaction and find it to be more stimulating, intellectually challenging and engaging than watching reruns on cable TV.

Best,

Arthur