We arrived Monday and the event kicked off with a cocktail reception leading to a working dinner.  Senator D’amato and Rep. Wexler addressed the crowd, and then John Pappas explained what each of us could expect during our visit to Capital Hill over the next two days.

About 30 State Directors were in attendance as well as several Pros.  Greg Raymer, Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Andy Bloch, Linda Johnson and Jordon Morgan (who also happens to be the OK State Director) were there.

The next morning we all set out for our pre-arranged appointments on the Hill.  PPA Lobbyists joined each of us prior and during our meetings with the congress members or thier staff.  This worked out well as the meetings tend to be very short and focused. These guys make their living lobbying Congress and were a huge help in keeping the meetings on point. 

I met with Staff members of both PA Senators Casey and Spector and Representatives Mike Doyle and Tim Murphy.  All in all I thought that the meetings were productive and generally positive.  Greg Raymer and Howar Lederer joined me in the Murphy meeting because we thought that the Representative himself would be there.  Unfortunately, he was unable to attend, and we met with staff instead.

On Tuesday night the PPA held a Charity Poker Tournament benefiting the USO.  A bunch of military attended including several patients from Walter Reed Hospital.  All seemed to have a great time.

While the tourney was a freeroll, PPA made a donation of 25K to the USO and players were allowed to rebuy for the first hour for $100, and all the Pros (and some Pro Wannabees) put bounties on themselves.  This money also went to the USO, and by the end of the night a total of 35K was donated!  Many of us wound up rebuying for the Vets that were knocked out early, and the event was eventually won by one of the Vets!

The poker Press was also well represented with Dan from Poker News Daily and PocketFives.com and Jennifer from Bluff in attendance.

This event served as reminder to me of the value of visiting elected officials.  These people really do listen to thier constituents (or they do if they want to be re-elected!) and will give you the time to see them if asked.  Please contact me if you think a visit to your State or Federal office holder is in order.  I’ll try to work my schedule out to join you, but if that doesn’t work out I’ll help you through the process as much as you need.

Don’t forget to keep writing and calling these politicians as well.  They do keep track of the numbers.

Tripp

You may have seen reports on these two cases in recent weeks. There is some confusion as to what they mean to Poker Players in PA. I’ll do my best to explain what I know at this point.

I had an extensive conversation with Patrick Fleming (PPA Legal Support Team) and others this week preparing for an interview with a local reporter questioning us on both the Columbia and Westmoreland cases. I can’t exactly remember what all I said in previous emails, but the long and short of it is:

The Columbia County case was very good for us, but limited in jurisdiction to the two counties the Judge is in. It is being appealed by the County DA, and this could actually benefit us if they affirm the decision. However it depends on HOW they affirm it. If broadly, (the State did not prove it’s case and Poker IS a game of skill) it helps, narrowly (as in “the state did not prove it’s case in this instance” then it is difficult to use as precedent in other jurisdictions.

In the Westmoreland (Greensburg) case, the Judge DID NOT rule that Poker is a game of chance and thus is “illegal Gambling” in PA. Essentially it was a misleading headline. He was ruling as to whether the law in PA is not so vague as to make it believable that the people involved would never consider the chance that it WAS illegal gambling.

In effect this was a ruling on the constitutionality of the actual law, not a ruling for or against pokers legal standing. The defendants in this case can still (and hopefully will) present the Game of Skill argument.

I know that PPA’s legal support team has had some conversations with the Westmoreland people. If they are PPA members they can access this advice for free. That doesn’t mean that you are represented for free, but they will help your lawyer and even recommend knowledgeable counsel. Something to keep in mind.

Hope this helps clear some of the confusion. We are hoping for a poker favorable article in the Pittsburgh City Paper in the near future. We discussed much of the above with the reporter and I hope it all gets in!

Let me know if you here anything about either of the above cases or any new cases in your areas. If you or someone you know gets involved, don’t forget to get the Legal Support Team involved!

Tripp

I had the opportunity to meet a fellow PPA member from the Altoona area, Charlie W. as we visited the Hollidaysburg office of Congressman Bill Shuster.  We were privileged to meet directly with Congressman Shuster as well as his District Director Jim Frank.

Unknown to me, Charlie is a bit of a media celebrity in the Altoona area and was both well known by the Congressman and warmly met.  This obviously takes the edge off the start of any meeting!

In any case, after a general discussion of the latest antics of Nancy Pelosi to avoid forming an energy policy, we got down to the issues that interest us as PPA supporters.

I think that it is fair to say that Congressman Shuster is firmly on our side on our major issues.  He indicated that as long as children can be prevented from participating, he has no problem with either Internet or Live poker games as long as they are honestly run.  He recognizes that through proper regulation and licensing, safe and secure games can be run in both venues and that needed revenue can be derived by local, state and federal governments.

Congressman Shuster believes that gambling is primarily a States issue and that if the UIGEA is going to remain in place “Unlawful Internet Gambling” must be defined.

The Congressman asked his Deputy, Jim Frank to look at both HR 2046 (Internet Gambling Regulation And Enforcement Act) and HR 2610 (Skill Game Protection Act) with the idea of signing on to them.

This is just an overview of our discussion which lasted about 45 minutes; an unusually long time to have a Congressman’s attention (Thanks again Charlie!).  In summary I believe that Congressman Shuster is a friend of the PPA and the poker players of his district and deserves your support at the polls, in the field and of course financially.

Tripp

I’m happy to report that our visit to Congressman Gerlach’s office and all of our PPA Member calls seems to have worked!  The Congressman was one of four Republican’s to ask the Treasury and the Federal Reserve even after voting the King Amendment.  Read the UIGEA Letter .

Pete S., a constituent of Gerlachs accompianied me on our visit and recently received this-Gerlach Statement TO Constituent.  Thanks to Pete and all of the other PPA members who made phone calls to support our cause.  This just shows you the power that voters have if used properly!

I’m visiting Congressman Bud Shusters office on Monday to discuss our position with his staff.  I’ll update you on thier responses.

Thanks

Tripp Amick

PA State Director

First I’d like to apologize for not hitting the forum for quite some time.  I had a family illness that took a lot of my time.

Parts of my responsibilities are to visit various politicians to determine if they are a friend or foe to our cause.  An obvious clue is how they have voted or intend to vote on Bills and Amendments that affect our cause. 

Yesterday I met with Bryan Kendro, Senior Legislative Assistant to Congressman Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania’s 6^th Congressional District http://gerlach.house.gov/District/ .  I was accompanied by Pete Segal, a PPA member and constituent of Gerlach’s.  Congressman Gerlach was one of the “Nay” votes that lead to the defeat of the HR5767 amendment to the UIEGA.  If you’re not familiar with this amendment and its purpose, go to http://theppa.org/headlines/2008/06/24/hr5767-selected-coverage-of-hr5767-markup-congressional-hearing/

If you haven’t already done so, look at the video testimony of this hearing, particularly that of Congressman Bachus (R-AL).  It’s amusing to say the least!  Congressman Bachus seems to attribute most of the worlds ills to online gambling, at one point quoting a McGill University “Study” (really a thesis from what I could see) that claims that 30% of underage gamblers commit suicide!  While I’m not sure how many underage gamblers there are, I suspect that we’d all be tripping over bodies if this were true.  The same study apparently claims that 80% of children 8-18 years have a gambling issue!  Must be a lot of lunch money being put at risk out there.

PPA’s purpose for this meeting was to determine why Congressman Gerlach voted against this amendment, what his general stand is on poker, if he has been hearing from our members, and if there is any position on current or future bills that he feels comfortable with that supports our goals.

Mr. Kendro stated that Gerlach’s Nay vote was due to his belief that the UIEGA should be either repealed or enacted as is.  His belief is that this amendment would have only served to delay the implementation of the act.  It is his opinion that the legality of internet gambling should be decided by the States, not the Fed.

Bryan stated that Congressman Gerlach makes no distinction between any forms of gambling.  “Gambling is gambling is gambling” is how it was put.  Obviously this is counter to our belief that Poker is a game of skill and does not bode well as an indication of his future votes on the subject.  We did ask for his positions on both HR 2046 and 2610 that would license the activity while safeguarding our citizens.  Mr. Kendro was unfamiliar with these but said he would research them and get back to us.

Bryan indicated that he had indeed heard from membership.  I can’t stress how important this is!  Phone calls and letters are best and really get their attention.  Frankly that’s probably why we wound up with a senior assistant instead of a more junior one.

Congressman Gerlach is running for election and is vulnerable.  He only won by about 500 votes in the last election in spite of his district being gerrymandered by the Republican Congress (Note the big hole full of Democrats that was chopped from the middle of his district!).  We currently have about 1500 PPA members residing in the 6^th, so we could potentially determine the next election! 

Overall I would rate Gerlach as Neutral at best, probably leaning towards the negative towards our issues.  I do think that if presented with good solid information supporting our issues and continued contact by his constiuents we could move him up the scale.

I will be contacting Gerlach’s opponent, Democrat Bob Roggio next week to try and determine his stance on our issues.  I’ll report back to you with this information as well as any clarification on Gerlach’s part as soon as I can.

Tripp