Poker Players Alliance and director John Pappas linked to lobbying effort for SunFirst Bank on behalf of Pokerstars/Full Tilt

Dedicated online poker investigative journalist Haley Hintze is at it again. She just released an eye-opening five-part piece regarding the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and their attempt to lobby on behalf of SunFirst Bank of St. George, Utah, which was at the center of the April 15, 2011 "Black Friday" online poker busts.

Part 1: http://www.flushdraw.com/news/ppa-li...t-1-backstory/

Part 2: http://www.flushdraw.com/news/ppa-li...g-elite-debit/

Part 3: http://www.flushdraw.com/news/ppa-li...sful-lobbying/

Part 4: http://www.flushdraw.com/news/ppa-li...irst-collapse/

Part 5: http://www.flushdraw.com/news/ppa-li...and-questions/


This lobbying was orchestrated by Full Tilt and Pokerstars, both of which had gotten on board with SunFirst to process its payments. Chad Elie, who appeared on PFA Radio in November, pled guilty to being part of this scheme, and is currently serving prison time for it.

The interesting element to this whole thing is the fact that the PPA got so involved in lobbying on behalf of Pokerstars and Full Tilt to get them a working "legal" payment processor. The presumed goal of the lobbying was to get favorable legal status for SunFirst's payment processing in the eyes of the state of Utah, thus lessening the legal blow (or eliminating it) when the federal government would eventually come knocking to investigate.

If you recall, the PPA's mission statement from their website is as follows:

Quote:

---

The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws.

---

Basically, the above claims that the PPA's mission is to get US laws changed to where online poker would be legalized and regulated in this country.

So why were they doing work to help Pokerstars and Full Tilt establish a stable payment processor?

It really makes it look like the PPA was devoting a lot of their time, money, and energy to work for Pokerstars' and Full Tilt's interests-du-jour. Why was the PPA getting involved at all in the area of payment processing?

The obvious reason is their source of funding, which Rich Muny admitted on last week's interview was primarily from those two sites. He would not give a percentage, but seemed to strongly imply that those sites contributed far more than the member base did.

This is a whopper of an article, and I wish I knew about this at the time of the debate I had with PPA Vice-President Rich Muny.

I will post more of my comments on this article shortly.

Some of you might say, "Hey, I have no problem with this. The PPA was trying to get SunFirst on better legal ground, so Pokerstars and Full Tilt could process our payments more easily. What's wrong with that?"

Or perhaps some of you might point out, "If the PPA helped obtain a favorable legal status for SunFirst in Utah, wouldn't that set the groundwork for legalizing online poker entirely, since the illegal part of it according to the UIGEA was the payment processing?"

On the surface, these seem like legitimate arguments, but they are invalid if you really think about it.

The whole SunFirst scheme was a hail-Mary attempt by Pokerstars and Full Tilt to establish some sort of stable payment processing after a series of payment processing disasters. Recall that they had already been victimized by Daniel Tzvetkoff for $100 million prior to this, and many other smaller processors were getting busted left and right (which resulted in the sites' money being seized, usually in the 8-figure range each time). Despite the immense profits coming in, Stars and Tilt could not keep taking these hits, nor could they afford the increasing delays in payment processing that would result from the uncertainty of these fly-by-night-operations.

The SunFirst scheme was designed to get a small bank involved to go along with their illegal plans. While SunFirst, Elie, Johnson, and apparently the PPA made some attempts to insert some quasi-legality into the situation, these were more setting the groundwork for a legal defense if the federal government eventually came after SunFirst and its co-conspirators. Indeed, many aspects of the SunFirst operation were clearly illegal, such as miscoding many of the deposits as phony online purchases. Thus, the lobbying for SunFirst appears to have been a self-serving attempt by Pokerstars and Full Tilt to protect their then-current processor, as opposed to anything that would benefit the legalization of online poker in the long run.

In fact, as Haley noted in her article, the SunFirst situation (and its major involvement of telemarketing scammer Jeremy Johnson) very well may have kicked the DOJ's ass into high gear and hastened the onset of Black Friday.

As some of you recall, Haley was promised a "no holds barred" interview by Pappas recently. She submitted the following five questions publicly on PokerFraudAlert, all of which were acknowledged by PPA Vice President Rich Muny:

Quote:

---

1) Where can one find the annual financial filings for the Poker Players Alliance, a nonprofit organization, for the years 2009-2012? A link to this information does not seem to be present on the PPA website.

2) How much money did the PPA receive from corporate contributors PokerStars and Full Tilt, on a year-by-year basis? Please itemize: “Full Tilt’s contributions for the calendar year 2010 = $$$$” and so on. It’s okay to lump contributions to the PPA, to PokerPac, and to third-party organizations such as D’Amato’s firm together as a single total. I’m more interested in how much Stars and Tilt spent in $$$ that went through the PPA.

3) When did the PPA’s John Pappas first meet SunFirst Bank payment processor Jeremy Johnson? What was the nature of that meeting?

4) When did the PPA’s John Pappas first have contact with Jeremy Johnson, in the form of e-mails, phone calls, or through another medium? What was the nature of that contact, and for what purpose?

5) When did the PPA’s John Pappas first have contact with Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow, the former and present Utah Attorneys General? Was it due to Pappas’s prior work with Dittus Communications (and if so, on behalf of what lobbying cause), or was it through Pappas’s work as a staffer for Arizona Congressman John Shadegg?

---

Haley also sent these questions directly to Pappas via e-mail.

Pappas did not respond, despite the fact that he was given about a week to do so.

I think that especially speaks volumes.

Also, if you recall, the Salt Like Tribune posted an hour-long secret audio tape made by Jeremy Johnson, of his meeting with Utah Attorney General John Swallow.

In that tape, Johnson mentioned his attempts to bribe Harry Reid in order to make the investigation into his telemarketing scam company go away. He mentioned a separate bribe of a million dollars facilitated by Full Tilt, which was supposed to get Reid's support for online poker.

These bribes were never proven, but they seem very possible.

Johnson mentioned Pappas as one of the people in attendance at the million-dollar-bribe meeting.

Haley reported this at the time of the Salt Lake Tribune article a few weeks ago, and Pappas freaked out. He posted to Pocketfives, strongly denying this and issuing a Lederer-esque "I-remember-one-time-a-a-party" response regarding his relationship with Johnson:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Pappas

It is disgraceful that the PPA’s name has been inserted in this supposed ‘news story’ by an editorial writer who has a history of being critical of our organization

I have only met Mr. Johnson in-person once and briefly, when he attended a fundraiser with almost 100 people that our organization hosted for Senator Reid at the World Series of Poker.

---

No further evidence has surfaced that Pappas was really at that bribe meeting, but I still feel it's very possible that he was.

Johnson had no reason to make up the claim of Pappas being there. It did nothing to further any of his points or stories, but rather was just something he seemed to offhandedly recall.

Also, Pappas' statement of "I have only met Mr. Johnson in-person once and briefly, when he attended a fundraiser with almost 100 people that our organization hosted for Senator Reid at the World Series of Poker" is very misleading. We now know that Pappas exchanged many e-mails with Johnson over the course of several months, according to information furnished by the Salt Lake Tribune.

Even if Pappas was being honest that he only met Johnson once, if he had been actively e-mailing with him for months, that's pretty much the same thing as meeting, as far as these sorts of accusations go. His statement strongly implies that he barely had any acquaintance with Johnson, which clearly is not true.

How does this qualify as either a Scam, Scandal or Shadiness? It seems more like flying stupidity to me.

Quote:

---

Thus, the lobbying for SunFirst appears to have been a self-serving attempt by Pokerstars and Full Tilt to protect their then-current processor, as opposed to anything that would benefit the legalization of online poker in the long run.

---

PokerStars and Full Tilt were online poker in the eyes of most Americans, ~95% of PPA membership came from freeroll entries conducted on those sites, so establishing the legality of those sites accepting deposits from US players was equivalent to 'benefiting the legalization of online poker' - the membership wasn't interested in the 'long run'.

Did it blow up in their face and possibly expedite or perhaps even cause Black Friday? It would appear so, the DOJ would likely have been happy to continue playing the cat n' mouse game of seizing poker funds where they could and actually building cases to put people in prison - let's not forget the government was running a covert processor at this time to gather more evidence.

Getting mixed up with this Johnson character and his FDIC/FCC investigation almost assuredly forced the DOJ's hand to bring down indictments when it did, but hindsight is always 20/20, if the PPA had been successful at convincing the Utah AG that 'poker isn't gambling' (and therefore immune to the UIGEA), then PokerStars and FTP might have continued transparent processing right up until Congress was forced to pass new legislation.

Was it idiotic? It was Flying Stupidity, to argue that poker isn't gambling because skill prevails in the long run is mind numbingly idiotic, as the prizes (pots) in cash poker 'contests' aren't awarded over 'the long run', they are awarded every single hand, even most tournament poker 'contests' aren't deep enough to be a valid determination of skill, and even if they were, paying a fee to enter a contest of skill falls under the definition of gambling in many States.

But when the guys writing the checks (Scheinberg, Lederer, Ferguson) actually believe it, and their lawyers offer up statistical analysis and case history to support it, what choice did the PPA have but to take that preposterous idea and run with it?

If it ended up hurting the players in the long run, it was clearly by accident, not a scam or anything shady, so there is no scandal to see here.

Prior to this article, did anyone have any idea that the PPA was working with Stars and Tilt to locally "legalize" their payment processor?

I don't think this was ever disclosed. Perhaps I just missed it, but this really looks like the PPA going to "work" for Stars and Tilt.

To me this looks like a case of Stars and Tilt approaching the PPA and basically saying, "Hey, we've given you guys all of this money over the years. Now it's time to do something for us."

The PPA and Pappas probably rationalized their willingness to do so as something good for their members, as strengthening the Utah legality of the SunFirst operation would help existing Stars and Tilt players get paid faster.

This was a foolhardly way to go about things for the long-term, though, and it seems to be way outside of the PPA's stated mission. The fact that nobody was informed of this effort as it was going on (and even now, long after-the-fact) seems to indicate that they didn't exactly want this made public.

Bang up article, well done Haley.

I'm glad she asked for an itemized donation breakdown (stars+tilt vs. membership donations) in her questions to the PPA. The IRS form 990 for Poker Players Alliance, TY 2010, lists income: membership dues of $50,290; other contributions $5,211,337. Even if part of the other contributions section was members, it just won't compare to the amounts from Stars and Tilt.

The email communication between Pappas and Jeremy Johnson is scathing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by from the article

According to Pappas, “I have only met Mr. Johnson in-person once and briefly, when he attended a fundraiser with almost 100 people that our organization hosted for Senator Reid at the World Series of Poker.”

---

one time, at a party...

Almost everything Haley writes falls into the, who fucking cares category? She did some solid work on UB, and I guess this is her attempt to remain relevant in some manner in the lol world of investigative poker journalism.

Everyone knew PPA was funded almost entirely by FT and PS at that time. We are supposed to be surprised they were involved in some kind of Hail Mary to get the owners on a little more stable ground? Once again, who cares? If it worked, it would have been applauded and made payments smoother, as that was American poker at the time. Get that done to keep the ship afloat, and continue to fight for legalization by whatever means.

When FT and PS got sunk in the US, I would have had less respect for them if they folded tent. They didn't, however, they simply jumped in bed with the mortar casinos. Good. Whatever it takes. Bribe, and get in bed with whomever necessary, and maybe eventually you'll get lucky. That's what I want them to do. If I was Pappas, I'd tell Haley to go get fucked with her questions also. She's got some small niche readership, a large percentage of whom disagree with her. She is pretty much universally disliked personally, and it's laughable that she thinks a story like this is some big scoop.

I understand the Druff argument that trying to win on a poker isn't gambling angle is a tremendous long shot, but if you take that out of the mix, how else besides backroom deals and general political bribery do you attempt to get it done? it isn't a big enough issue to ever grow some movement. It's passage is always going to come as a result of some chicanery.

The only legitimate criticism of the PPA is that they have failed to achieve their ultimate goal yet, but not for lack of effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Prior to this article, did anyone have any idea that the PPA was working with Stars and Tilt to locally "legalize" their payment processor?

I don't think this was ever disclosed. Perhaps I just missed it, but this really looks like the PPA going to "work" for Stars and Tilt.

To me this looks like a case of Stars and Tilt approaching the PPA and basically saying, "Hey, we've given you guys all of this money over the years. Now it's time to do something for us."

The PPA and Pappas probably rationalized their willingness to do so as something good for their members, as strengthening the Utah legality of the SunFirst operation would help existing Stars and Tilt players get paid faster.

This was a foolhardly way to go about things for the long-term, though, and it seems to be way outside of the PPA's stated mission. The fact that nobody was informed of this effort as it was going on (and even now, long after-the-fact) seems to indicate that they didn't exactly want this made public.

---

When the UIGEA was passed the PPA lobbied the Treasury Department to exclude 'skill games' such as poker from the enforcement regulations, then lobbied further to have the enforcement of the published regulations delayed until 2010 when they couldn't get a safeharbor for poker.

In the Summer of 2009, when another processor had it's funds seized, the PPA came out publicly arguing that peer-to-peer poker player's money was not subject to the IGBA (the statue under which it was seized), and even filed an amicus brief on behalf of that processor prior to him taking a plead bargain.

The PPA never made it a secret that, from the time the UIGEA was passed, that one of their primary goals was to get poker processing excluded from UIGEA prohibitions, whether it was through legislation, lobbying, litigating or negotiating with State AG's, it was a priority for both the sites and the players.

John Pappas finally answered on 2+2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Pappas

I’d like to take the opportunity to clear up some falsehoods that have been circulating around the PPA’s mission and my actions as executive director.

As most of you probably know, Haley Hintze is not a supporter of the PPA and has recently made it her personal agenda to drag our name through the mud at any and all opportunity. Back in September 2012, when I offered to discuss her concerns with the PPA, Haley declined my offer and has since taken the opportunity to attack PPA and our efforts in her commentary without the facts. Here are some excerpts from our emails in September:

Quote:

---

From: John Pappas
To: haleyhintze
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:49 PM
Subject: Hello!
Haley -- Hello and I hope you are well. I understand you have some critiques about the PPA’s advocacy work … I’d be happy to speak with you to address your concerns and hopefully clear up any questions you may have. Let me know if there is a time tomorrow (Thursday) that works for you.

---

Haley’s response:

Quote:

---

Hi, John,
Nope, not too interested today. Twenty-four hours ago I'd have said yes, but things have changed. Please go ahead and cancel my PPA membership while you're at it.

---

Pappas responds:

Quote:

---

From: John Pappas >
To: 'Haley Hintze'
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: Hello!
Okay. Perhaps I have missed something, but what has occurred in the past 24 that has turned off the possibility of me addressing your concerns?

---

Haley again:

Quote:

---

Pretty concerted efforts by various PPA folks to drown me out and smear me … Granted that I haven't exactly taken a pro-PPA stance, but my core beliefs remain the same, including that the PPA shouldn't call itself a "Players" group if it continues, first and foremost, to serve selected business interests. You can declare and defend otherwise, but I'm not going to change my opinion, and what I wrote was OPINION/editorial.

---

Pappas final response:

Quote:

---

From: John Pappas
To: Haley Hintze
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Hello!

Well, safe to say I don't agree with your opinions and my hope was to better inform you of the PPA's lobbying efforts, where we focus our resources and how those decisions are made. Sadly, you seem intent on holding fast to your opinions, even without the benefit of this knowledge; which seems an odd approach from someone in the field of journalism. Nevertheless, I respect your decision.

As for the "smearing" of your good name, the tweets and responses to your articles that I have seen have in very large part been respectful and are attempting to correct your misinformed statements. That is far from a smear campaign, sounds more like passionate ppa members defending the organization from your attacks. And if someone does cross the line, I can assure you it would not be condoned or approved by me.

Finally, per your membership request, we have no record of a Haley Hintze being a ppa member.

---

As you can tell, based on this exchange alone, I have little interest in responding to Ms. Hintze in any fashion, much less her demand that I post my responses to her questions on the PokerFraudAlert forum.

In Haley’s most recent manifesto, she has tried to perpetuate the notion that the PPA was intricately involved with payment processor Jeremy Johnson.

Here are the facts:

• In April 2010, I met with the Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his Chief Deputy to explain the basis for the PPA’s long-standing position that poker is a game of skill, not chance, and therefore lawful under Utah state gambling law. The meeting was also important to the PPA and its mission because the Attorney General had been an outspoken critic of the UIGEA and had suggested that he would support regulation of Internet gaming.
  
  
• The purpose of the meeting from the PPA’s perspective was to get the Attorney General to review the law and our analysis of the relevant case law and to consider issuing an opinion related to poker. [As many of you know, this is a key argument in the states where poker is currently deemed illegal and because of our work on skill v. chance that we presented in a federal court last summer, United States v. DiCristina, the judge issued a 120 page opinion about why poker is a game of skill and does not violate a series of federal laws.
  
  
• Although we had a productive dialogue, it was clear to me that the Attorney General would not issue an opinion, but would consider our research and analysis after the meeting. At no point during the meeting was payment processing discussed and there was never a mention of SunFirst Bank. Ultimately, nothing came about as a result of the meeting.
  
  
• I have only met Jeremy Johnson once in person, albeit briefly, at a large fundraiser. Besides that interaction, the only time I communicated with him was via email to facilitate the same type of meeting in Utah, which the PPA was having across the country regarding the "skill vs. chance" legal argument. In all, I have received 6 emails from Jeremy Johnson from March 18 – April 1, 2010. Again, I met him in person only once at the Harry Reid fundraiser at the WSOP later that year. An event attended by nearly 100 people. I have never had a private meeting with Mr. Johnson and Harry Reid (I have met with Senator Reid on several occasions, but never with anyone who was not directly associated with the PPA).
  
  
• I have met Attorney General Shurtleff in Washington D.C. on a few occasions. Most notably when I presented to a group of U.S. Attorneys General at their annual meeting about poker and why states should support regulation of Internet poker.

I recently explained this to Business Reporter Tom Harvey, who covers white collar crime for the Salt Lake Tribune when he contacted me two weeks ago on a legitimate article he was drafting on the Attorney General’s involvement with payment processor Jeremy Johnson. In the piece, Tom wrote:



I fully respect the freedom of press to report the facts, just as I respect protect players’ freedoms to play poker, but I also know it is important to consider the source. A legitimate news reporter gathers and reports on the facts and let’s their readers form an opinion. An opinion/editorial reporter takes the facts and offers their transparent opinion for their readers to consider. Haley Hintze is neither of these as she is simply providing her own opinion, cloaked as fact in her own commentary. She will continue to try to attack PPA’s credibility and integrity, but facts are facts.

We at the PPA are fighting for your rights to play the game of poker whether it be at your card table in states like Maryland, New Hampshire and Texas or online with players in your state and across the country. Black Friday was a terrible day and though the PPA did not foster the situation that led to it, we have been working overtime to help resolve it. Since that day, we have been working with the players affected to ensure the government pays back the money they owe and that the DOJ once and for all recognizes the rights of American citizens to play this game.

We always welcome player feedback, good and bad to help us in this fight and in fact, we depend on it. Give us a call or send an email if you still have concerns or want to share your ideas. We are always here fighting for you.

John A. Pappas
Executive Director, PPA

---

As typical of PPA board members, the response was very wordy and didn't say much.

John did not answer directly to the charges that he and the PPA helped lobby for SunFirst.

He did not answer whether or not he and Johnson e-mailed for months -- only that their in-person interaction was limited to one time at a party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Almost everything Haley writes falls into the, who fucking cares category? She did some solid work on UB, and I guess this is her attempt to remain relevant in some manner in the lol world of investigative poker journalism.

Everyone knew PPA was funded almost entirely by FT and PS at that time. We are supposed to be surprised they were involved in some kind of Hail Mary to get the owners on a little more stable ground? Once again, who cares? If it worked, it would have been applauded and made payments smoother, as that was American poker at the time. Get that done to keep the ship afloat, and continue to fight for legalization by whatever means.

When FT and PS got sunk in the US, I would have had less respect for them if they folded tent. They didn't, however, they simply jumped in bed with the mortar casinos. Good. Whatever it takes. Bribe, and get in bed with whomever necessary, and maybe eventually you'll get lucky. That's what I want them to do. If I was Pappas, I'd tell Haley to go get fucked with her questions also. She's got some small niche readership, a large percentage of whom disagree with her. She is pretty much universally disliked personally, and it's laughable that she thinks a story like this is some big scoop.

I understand the Druff argument that trying to win on a poker isn't gambling angle is a tremendous long shot, but if you take that out of the mix, how else besides backroom deals and general political bribery do you attempt to get it done? it isn't a big enough issue to ever grow some movement. It's passage is always going to come as a result of some chicanery.

The only legitimate criticism of the PPA is that they have failed to achieve their ultimate goal yet, but not for lack of effort.

---

Not that Haley cares about the random opinion of someone on the internet such as myself, but I was having a bad day yesterday and this was overly harsh. I don't find much about this particular series enlightening, but probably because I read poker legislation every day and just always assumed all of it. I also don't necessarily disagree with the PPA getting in bed with all sorts in an attempt to try and further the cause.


The personally disliked comment just stems from all the infighting regarding the UB story. It feels petty to be perfectly honest, and an impediment to getting the full story out. I wish those who are insiders from the company would pick one person, preferably Haley, and we could get this book before I have to read it on a retirement cruise in 2030.

I do think Haley is clearly the most qualified person to write the story, and I will buy her book when it comes out, because I believe it will be factual. Of the others involved, I doubt I'd buy their book. I think she's factual almost to a fault. Sound trade-craft, but painstakingly slow.

Anyways, not that it matters as I'm nobody in the poker world, but after rereading, I thought it warranted an apology.

how much did alfonse d'amato get from the PPA...$5mill slushfund and virtually nothing to show for it...freaking clowns.

Private jets and caviar ftw.

Is Alfonse D'Amato any relation to Cus D'Amato?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Almost everything Haley writes falls into the, who fucking cares category? She did some solid work on UB, and I guess this is her attempt to remain relevant in some manner in the lol world of investigative poker journalism.

Everyone knew PPA was funded almost entirely by FT and PS at that time. We are supposed to be surprised they were involved in some kind of Hail Mary to get the owners on a little more stable ground? Once again, who cares? If it worked, it would have been applauded and made payments smoother, as that was American poker at the time. Get that done to keep the ship afloat, and continue to fight for legalization by whatever means.

When FT and PS got sunk in the US, I would have had less respect for them if they folded tent. They didn't, however, they simply jumped in bed with the mortar casinos. Good. Whatever it takes. Bribe, and get in bed with whomever necessary, and maybe eventually you'll get lucky. That's what I want them to do. If I was Pappas, I'd tell Haley to go get fucked with her questions also. She's got some small niche readership, a large percentage of whom disagree with her. She is pretty much universally disliked personally, and it's laughable that she thinks a story like this is some big scoop.

I understand the Druff argument that trying to win on a poker isn't gambling angle is a tremendous long shot, but if you take that out of the mix, how else besides backroom deals and general political bribery do you attempt to get it done? it isn't a big enough issue to ever grow some movement. It's passage is always going to come as a result of some chicanery.

The only legitimate criticism of the PPA is that they have failed to achieve their ultimate goal yet, but not for lack of effort.

---

Not that Haley cares about the random opinion of someone on the internet such as myself, but I was having a bad day yesterday and this was overly harsh. I don't find much about this particular series enlightening, but probably because I read poker legislation every day and just always assumed all of it. I also don't necessarily disagree with the PPA getting in bed with all sorts in an attempt to try and further the cause.


The personally disliked comment just stems from all the infighting regarding the UB story. It feels petty to be perfectly honest, and an impediment to getting the full story out. I wish those who are insiders from the company would pick one person, preferably Haley, and we could get this book before I have to read it on a retirement cruise in 2030.

I do think Haley is clearly the most qualified person to write the story, and I will buy her book when it comes out, because I believe it will be factual. Of the others involved, I doubt I'd buy their book. I think she's factual almost to a fault. Sound trade-craft, but painstakingly slow.

Anyways, not that it matters as I'm nobody in the poker world, but after rereading, I thought it warranted an apology.

---

Actually, I care about a lot of opinions in the world; I'll give anyone a listen until they prove to me they're not worth listening to. If I could have my druthers, I'd like to be loved while still being free to express all my opinions, but I've learned the hard way the world just doesn't work that way. If I'm going to write the tough stories, I'm going to take a lot of flak for them.

Your opinion hurt because it had some elements of truth in it; I would very much agree that I can be cranky and hard to get along with at times, but I'm going to stand my ground in some of these reporting skirmishes that have occurred. Regarding the book, the drive has tapered a bit, once I realized that there's no longer anything I can do to put the people behind the cheating in prison. Pretty much all the cheaters are known now, anyway. Regarding the delays, sometimes stuff happens. It's been complicated by some health problems both for me and my elderly, not-well parents; my mom fell and broke a hip just a couple of days ago, after a major heart attack just before the holidays, and let's just say life can change one's ideal hopes and plans.

Thank you for your apology and don't worry about it. Taking heat comes with the territory, and if I'm going to be critical of a sacred cow such as the PPA, they're going to take some pretty solid shots at me.

Which reminds me....

Muny's post as it appears now (#34 in the thread in NVG at 2+2) is just slightly different from first typed. It now reads, "No....she insisted that he respond on the PokerFraudAlert forum." For a few minutes, it read like this: "No....she insisted that he respond on the PokerFraudAlert forum. LOL." Muny has green-mod status there, and it seems he can edit stuff without the little "Edit" line showing. I was embarrassed for him for typing that. The "LOL" seemed to denigrate Druff and the PFA forum, the same forum which he'd just found worthy enough of showing up to talk on for three hours.

Mason Malmuth has also chimed in some weirdness, claiming I made up a lie in an earlier post about Malmuth. (And Malmuth and I don't get along, so there's another one, BCR.) Problem is, I very clearly remember the circumstances behind the story as Caldwell told it to me -- and heck, maybe John exaggerated something -- but he told me Malmuth went apeshit exactly as I relayed in that earlier tale. The funny thing is that it was Druff and DonkDown that Malmuth was told to me to have gone apeshit about, and I'm sure Druff remembers the circumstances.

Druff can probably chime in with some other stories from the past, particularly the PokerNews DonkDown era, fiasco that it was. I can't think there was anyone in poker more offended than Malmuth was when Druff was selected to appear on the "60 Minutes" show on the UB scandal, and Malmuth made all sorts of comments about how Druff and Donkdown were a disgrace to the industry and whatnot. This led to Malmuth and Sklansky being the target of a lot of pretty sophomorish hijinks over at DD, one of which was the creation of which was the creation of a large piece of "art" (using the term very loosely), featuring PhotoShopped heads of Malmuth and Sklansky and nudity and Nazi symbols and all kinds of nasty crap. This was also not long after the Brandi Hawbaker suicide, a story involving Sklansky in a very bad way, and there were just tons of bad feelings flowing all over the place.

The Nazi Malmuth/Sklansky thing was rude; I wouldn't even attempt to defend it. Worse, there was no way that Micon would ever have taken that image down from his "uncensored" forum once he knew it had pushed Malmuth's hot button. And to the very best of my recollection, that's when I was told that Malmuth went nuts in contacting people at PokerNews to try to have that image removed or the site taken down or whatever, because he was pissed. Did someone tell me a fib? Maybe, but I believe it happened pretty much the way it was told to me.

Moving on. Pappas has claimed over there in that speech that he never talked about SunFirst with Shurtleff and Swallow. Yet we have this e-mail from the same timeframe as the meet. It's a little chopped up because that's exactly how I received it, but how can Pappas claim they didn't talk about it at all, yet someone says an "opinion might backfire"? For heaven's sake...:

April 1, 2010
From: Marc Zwillinger Marc@zwillgen.com
To john@theppa.org
Cc: Jeff Ifrah

This was second message on one to Jeremy Johnson at jeremyjohnson@iworks.com
April 2, 2010
…. Discussion opinion on poker process … AG and deputy warned an opinion might backfire “because the public nature of the opinion might cause members of the legislature to demand a change in the law to make it more clar that poker was illegal" … points out church is opposed to poker. ..
more include to try something less than formal opinion, like nonprosecution letter or statement. … suggest amicus brief … We also discuss how such a brief might be portrayed as consistent with Utah’s view of federalism …

It's possible that this isn't actually the e-mail itself, and it could be shorthand notes on an e-mail, but yet the headers are there, and it's clear they were talking about SunFirst. What Pappas claimed earlier today just does not jive with the above. Maybe Zwilliger or Ifrah did the talking on that topic instead of Pappas himself, but that's a ridiculous parsing of the topics being discussed if so. There weren't two meets, either; they were there with Pappas.

Two other things worth revisiting. I wish I'd been able to find that tax report thing that says $50,000 in player contributions, $5.1 million in other donations. So, greater than 99% corporate funding? Match that against Muny's quote earlier here at PFA:

“PPA is not in the tank for anyone. That being said, Druff said no one can start an effective poker group without outside donations, so it seems to be we have the best of both worlds — a subsidized advocacy effort and a player organization that is not in the tank for anyone but the players.”

Right.

Druff moved this thread over here from the one in the Flying Stupidity forum, perhaps because he thinks it's more shady than stupid. I'm not sure it's not just raging, ridiculous stupidity, all funded by the same folks who brought you... Full Tilt. Think of the stupidity it took to crash that billion-dollar money train, and this could fit the same scale.

But, really? Utah? Really?? The PPA, these lobbyists who are supposed to have a great feel for the political landscape? They went to the Attorney General of Utah and essentially told him they were running an online-poker processing operation in one of the most conservative, anti-gambling states in the US?? And they thought this was a good idea, and that a career politician like Mark Shurtleff would somehow fail to cover his own ass and instead give them the legal opinion they wanted? They believed Shurtleff wouldn't look into it, perhaps by calling some friends at the DOJ to get their take on the processing, and find out what else might be going on?

No, that's raging, billowing stupidity. To me it's so stupid that I have a hard time believing it could be anything else. And that's my personal takeaway from the series that I wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haleylh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

Not that Haley cares about the random opinion of someone on the internet such as myself, but I was having a bad day yesterday and this was overly harsh. I don't find much about this particular series enlightening, but probably because I read poker legislation every day and just always assumed all of it. I also don't necessarily disagree with the PPA getting in bed with all sorts in an attempt to try and further the cause.


The personally disliked comment just stems from all the infighting regarding the UB story. It feels petty to be perfectly honest, and an impediment to getting the full story out. I wish those who are insiders from the company would pick one person, preferably Haley, and we could get this book before I have to read it on a retirement cruise in 2030.

I do think Haley is clearly the most qualified person to write the story, and I will buy her book when it comes out, because I believe it will be factual. Of the others involved, I doubt I'd buy their book. I think she's factual almost to a fault. Sound trade-craft, but painstakingly slow.

Anyways, not that it matters as I'm nobody in the poker world, but after rereading, I thought it warranted an apology.

---

Actually, I care about a lot of opinions in the world; I'll give anyone a listen until they prove to me they're not worth listening to. If I could have my druthers, I'd like to be loved while still being free to express all my opinions, but I've learned the hard way the world just doesn't work that way. If I'm going to write the tough stories, I'm going to take a lot of flak for them.

Your opinion hurt because it had some elements of truth in it; I would very much agree that I can be cranky and hard to get along with at times, but I'm going to stand my ground in some of these reporting skirmishes that have occurred. Regarding the book, the drive has tapered a bit, once I realized that there's no longer anything I can do to put the people behind the cheating in prison. Pretty much all the cheaters are known now, anyway. Regarding the delays, sometimes stuff happens. It's been complicated by some health problems both for me and my elderly, not-well parents; my mom fell and broke a hip just a couple of days ago, after a major heart attack just before the holidays, and let's just say life can change one's ideal hopes and plans.

Thank you for your apology and don't worry about it. Taking heat comes with the territory, and if I'm going to be critical of a sacred cow such as the PPA, they're going to take some pretty solid shots at me.

Which reminds me....

Muny's post as it appears now (#34 in the thread in NVG at 2+2) is just slightly different from first typed. It now reads, "No....she insisted that he respond on the PokerFraudAlert forum." For a few minutes, it read like this: "No....she insisted that he respond on the PokerFraudAlert forum. LOL." Muny has green-mod status there, and it seems he can edit stuff without the little "Edit" line showing. I was embarrassed for him for typing that. The "LOL" seemed to denigrate Druff and the PFA forum, the same forum which he'd just found worthy enough of showing up to talk on for three hours.

Mason Malmuth has also chimed in some weirdness, claiming I made up a lie in an earlier post about Malmuth. (And Malmuth and I don't get along, so there's another one, BCR.) Problem is, I very clearly remember the circumstances behind the story as Caldwell told it to me -- and heck, maybe John exaggerated something -- but he told me Malmuth went apeshit exactly as I relayed in that earlier tale. The funny thing is that it was Druff and DonkDown that Malmuth was told to me to have gone apeshit about, and I'm sure Druff remembers the circumstances.

Druff can probably chime in with some other stories from the past, particularly the PokerNews DonkDown era, fiasco that it was. I can't think there was anyone in poker more offended than Malmuth was when Druff was selected to appear on the "60 Minutes" show on the UB scandal, and Malmuth made all sorts of comments about how Druff and Donkdown were a disgrace to the industry and whatnot. This led to Malmuth and Sklansky being the target of a lot of pretty sophomorish hijinks over at DD, one of which was the creation of which was the creation of a large piece of "art" (using the term very loosely), featuring PhotoShopped heads of Malmuth and Sklansky and nudity and Nazi symbols and all kinds of nasty crap. This was also not long after the Brandi Hawbaker suicide, a story involving Sklansky in a very bad way, and there were just tons of bad feelings flowing all over the place.

The Nazi Malmuth/Sklansky thing was rude; I wouldn't even attempt to defend it. Worse, there was no way that Micon would ever have taken that image down from his "uncensored" forum once he knew it had pushed Malmuth's hot button. And to the very best of my recollection, that's when I was told that Malmuth went nuts in contacting people at PokerNews to try to have that image removed or the site taken down or whatever, because he was pissed. Did someone tell me a fib? Maybe, but I believe it happened pretty much the way it was told to me.

Moving on. Pappas has claimed over there in that speech that he never talked about SunFirst with Shurtleff and Swallow. Yet we have this e-mail from the same timeframe as the meet. It's a little chopped up because that's exactly how I received it, but how can Pappas claim they didn't talk about it at all, yet someone says an "opinion might backfire"? For heaven's sake...:

April 1, 2010
From: Marc Zwillinger Marc@zwillgen.com
To john@theppa.org
Cc: Jeff Ifrah

This was second message on one to Jeremy Johnson at jeremyjohnson@iworks.com
April 2, 2010
…. Discussion opinion on poker process … AG and deputy warned an opinion might backfire “because the public nature of the opinion might cause members of the legislature to demand a change in the law to make it more clar that poker was illegal" … points out church is opposed to poker. ..
more include to try something less than formal opinion, like nonprosecution letter or statement. … suggest amicus brief … We also discuss how such a brief might be portrayed as consistent with Utah’s view of federalism …

It's possible that this isn't actually the e-mail itself, and it could be shorthand notes on an e-mail, but yet the headers are there, and it's clear they were talking about SunFirst. What Pappas claimed earlier today just does not jive with the above. Maybe Zwilliger or Ifrah did the talking on that topic instead of Pappas himself, but that's a ridiculous parsing of the topics being discussed if so. There weren't two meets, either; they were there with Pappas.

Two other things worth revisiting. I wish I'd been able to find that tax report thing that says $50,000 in player contributions, $5.1 million in other donations. So, greater than 99% corporate funding? Match that against Muny's quote earlier here at PFA:

“PPA is not in the tank for anyone. That being said, Druff said no one can start an effective poker group without outside donations, so it seems to be we have the best of both worlds — a subsidized advocacy effort and a player organization that is not in the tank for anyone but the players.”

Right.

Druff moved this thread over here from the one in the Flying Stupidity forum, perhaps because he thinks it's more shady than stupid. I'm not sure it's not just raging, ridiculous stupidity, all funded by the same folks who brought you... Full Tilt. Think of the stupidity it took to crash that billion-dollar money train, and this could fit the same scale.

But, really? Utah? Really?? The PPA, these lobbyists who are supposed to have a great feel for the political landscape? They went to the Attorney General of Utah and essentially told him they were running an online-poker processing operation in one of the most conservative, anti-gambling states in the US?? And they thought this was a good idea, and that a career politician like Mark Shurtleff would somehow fail to cover his own ass and instead give them the legal opinion they wanted? They believed Shurtleff wouldn't look into it, perhaps by calling some friends at the DOJ to get their take on the processing, and find out what else might be going on?

No, that's raging, billowing stupidity. To me it's so stupid that I have a hard time believing it could be anything else. And that's my personal takeaway from the series that I wrote.

---

Perfectly stated, years ago I used to wonder if the PPA had some hidden agenda or ulterior motives behind their efforts, as it just didn't seem plausible that they could honestly be so 'ridiculously stupid' - actually going out of their way to clarify the (il)legality of the gray area the companies funding them (two of whom sat on the PPA board) were operating in, e.g. - but I've come to know beyond any doubt that they truly are that dense.

Had they left well enough alone and kept 'selling golf-balls' rather than trying to get a clarified opinion to allow for transparent processing, presumably to cut down on costs and risk of seizure/theft, Black Friday likely never happens - or at least doesn't happen as early as it did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texter

how much did alfonse d'amato get from the PPA...$5mill slushfund and virtually nothing to show for it...freaking clowns.

---

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/cli...8402&year=2010

$360,000. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

The PPA tries to become legitimate by partnering with ex-senators; much in the same way as buying a black cape makes me become the batman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haleylh

Two other things worth revisiting. I wish I'd been able to find that tax report thing that says $50,000 in player contributions, $5.1 million in other donations. So, greater than 99% corporate funding? Match that against Muny's quote earlier here at PFA:

---

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s...ch/esearch.php

^ link to 990 search.

BTW, this thread is in the Scams, Scandals, and Shadiness forum because I want this forum to contain all of the serious discussions regarding controversial matters in poker. This is a much slower-moving forum, making it easy for casual browsers to find the important topics without trying to muddle through all the general-conversational threads that comprise Flying Stupidity.

The only "serious" thread I left in Flying Stupidity was the Jasep scandal, since it was more of a "local" scandal, specific to this community. That is the higher-trafficked forum, so I let that thread stay over there.

While I hate to give any traffic to 2+2, Mason's recent comments (and my reopening of a certain old story there) have been too much to resist.

Back to the PPA, though.

Haley's article has spawned a 20+ page thread on 2+2, which has gone in several directions:

- People bashing the PPA

- People defending the PPA

- People bashing Haley

- Mason trying to get in on the Haley-bashing because of a 5-year-old grudge he has with her


As usual in a long 2+2 thread, there are many idiots posting, including ones that initially (and falsely) appear to be intelligent because they can write well.

The thread features both John Pappas and Rich Muny.

One thing that really bothers me is the fact that people are completely dismissing as "not a big deal" that the PPA was 99% funded by the big online poker sites in 2010.

Recall from my interview with Muny that one of my first questions involved the percentage of funding the PPA received from the online sites. He would only answer that they contributed "the majority" but would not give a percentage. When I asked if it was an overwhelming percentage, he again dodged the question and refused to provide an exact number. I believe he claimed he didn't know the exact number. Now that it came out (thanks to "donfairplay") that the number was 99%, it's pretty clear that Rich didn't answer the question because the PPA didn't want people to know this.

I don't mind if the PPA is a lobbying arm for the big online poker sites. If they are the ones who pay to get the job done, so be it. I understand that the ones putting up the money should be the ones receiving the lobbying.

The thing that bothers me is the PPA's dishonesty about the whole matter.

They pretend to represent the players' interests.

This is false.

If they are 99% funded by the online poker sites, they represent the online poker sites -- NOT the players. There is no way around this. If the online poker sites did not feel the PPA was representing their exact interests, they would pull funding. That's how corporate funding of lobbying works. If you contribute substantially to a lobbying group, you have a lot of influence in what they do. If you contribute their entire funding (or almost their entire funding), you own them.

In the 2+2 thread, Rich insists that he represents the players, and that the PPA is/was not owned by Stars and Tilt. He might look in the mirror and tell himself that, but it's not the truth. Pokerstars is a very smart company. They would not keep pouring money into the PPA every year if it wasn't directly benefiting their interests.

Do player interests and Pokerstars' interests have any common ground?

Of course. We all want to see online poker legalized in the US.

However, the difference is that the average player doesn't care much whether or not Pokerstars is included in the legalized US poker market. We just want to be able to play legalized online poker on a legal, active, regulated site. It doesn't matter if those sites are run by Caesar's, MGM, or Pokerstars -- we just want to be able to play.

Pokerstars, however, needs BOTH legalization of online poker AND their inclusion in the US market. This is especially tough because Pokerstars, unlike Party and others, continued offering games after the UIGEA was passed in 2006.

Simply put, lobbying on behalf of Pokerstars (and Full Tilt prior to Black Friday) always had to include some opportunity for those sites to participate in the US market, while lobbying for the players simply needed online poker to be legalized.

The PPA wants everyone to believe they were only pushing for the latter, but the 99% funding says that they were definitely pushing for the former.

The fact that the PPA apparently got involved in the SunFirst fiasco shows how much they felt the need to "repay" Pokerstars and Full Tilt for their "generosity".

The PPA has been misrepresenting itself for 6+ years as a grassroots organization, when it is anything but that. It's actually the lobbying arm of the big online poker sites. It is highly dishonest for the PPA to represent itself as a grassroots, player-run group when in reality they answer to the big online poker sites whose interests ultimately come first.

I always knew that Stars and Tilt contributed a lot of money to the PPA, but I had no idea it was 99%. That is a game-changer to me. I would have really made this a big focus of my interview with Rich, had I known.

Why is 99% such a big issue?

If the players contributed something like 25%, you could at least reasonably believe that they had a real voice. 25% would still be enough funding to keep the organization relevant, even if Pokerstars were to get angry and pull funding. This would theoretically empower the PPA to act in the players' interests, and stand up to Pokerstars/Full Tilt if they got too demanding.

However, with player funding only comprising 1%, the PPA completely depends upon the online poker sites for funding. Basically, if Pokerstars/Full Tilt had pulled out in 2010, the PPA would have had almost zero funding, and therefore zero ability to lobby. Thus, the PPA was completely dependent upon those sites for its existence. It had to be very careful not to piss them off.

Let's put it another way:

Say you made $100,000 per year, and your rich dad gave you another $300,000 per year to live on. Let's also say you loved to party it up and do drugs all the time. If your dad objected to your lifestyle and threatened to cut you off unless you made major changes to your life, you might consider telling him to butt out, knowing that $100,000/year is still good money and you can get by just fine without his money and meddling. While the extra $300k from him is nice, it might be worth giving up in order to have complete independence.

But let's change the above and say you make $4,000 per year, and your dad gives you an additional $396,000. Furthermore, say that you have no skills and will never make more than minimum wage without your dad's help. You can't just tell your square dad to mind his own business. There's no way you can live on $4,000 per year, so then it pretty much becomes a choice between living in poverty or being rich and modifying your lifestyle to please your dad. Almost everyone in this spot would begrudgingly choose to acquiesce to dad's demands, and keep the much-needed money rolling in.

"Dad" Pokerstars is never going to let "son" PPA get out of line, or otherwise "son" goes broke.

There's no shame in "son" taking dad's money, unless "son" runs around town bragging how he's his own man and answers to no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Back to the PPA, though.

Haley's article has spawned a 20+ page thread on 2+2, which has gone in several directions:

- People bashing the PPA

- People defending the PPA

- People bashing Haley

- Mason trying to get in on the Haley-bashing because of a 5-year-old grudge he has with her


As usual in a long 2+2 thread, there are many idiots posting, including ones that initially (and falsely) appear to be intelligent because they can write well.

The thread features both John Pappas and Rich Muny.

One thing that really bothers me is the fact that people are completely dismissing as "not a big deal" that the PPA was 99% funded by the big online poker sites in 2010.

Recall from my interview with Muny that one of my first questions involved the percentage of funding the PPA received from the online sites. He would only answer that they contributed "the majority" but would not give a percentage. When I asked if it was an overwhelming percentage, he again dodged the question and refused to provide an exact number. I believe he claimed he didn't know the exact number. Now that it came out (thanks to "donfairplay") that the number was 99%, it's pretty clear that Rich didn't answer the question because the PPA didn't want people to know this.

I don't mind if the PPA is a lobbying arm for the big online poker sites. If they are the ones who pay to get the job done, so be it. I understand that the ones putting up the money should be the ones receiving the lobbying.

The thing that bothers me is the PPA's dishonesty about the whole matter.

They pretend to represent the players' interests.

This is false.

If they are 99% funded by the online poker sites, they represent the online poker sites -- NOT the players. There is no way around this. If the online poker sites did not feel the PPA was representing their exact interests, they would pull funding. That's how corporate funding of lobbying works. If you contribute substantially to a lobbying group, you have a lot of influence in what they do. If you contribute their entire funding (or almost their entire funding), you own them.

In the 2+2 thread, Rich insists that he represents the players, and that the PPA is/was not owned by Stars and Tilt. He might look in the mirror and tell himself that, but it's not the truth. Pokerstars is a very smart company. They would not keep pouring money into the PPA every year if it wasn't directly benefiting their interests.

Do player interests and Pokerstars' interests have any common ground?

Of course. We all want to see online poker legalized in the US.

However, the difference is that the average player doesn't care much whether or not Pokerstars is included in the legalized US poker market. We just want to be able to play legalized online poker on a legal, active, regulated site. It doesn't matter if those sites are run by Caesar's, MGM, or Pokerstars -- we just want to be able to play.

Pokerstars, however, needs BOTH legalization of online poker AND their inclusion in the US market. This is especially tough because Pokerstars, unlike Party and others, continued offering games after the UIGEA was passed in 2006.

Simply put, lobbying on behalf of Pokerstars (and Full Tilt prior to Black Friday) always had to include some opportunity for those sites to participate in the US market, while lobbying for the players simply needed online poker to be legalized.

The PPA wants everyone to believe they were only pushing for the latter, but the 99% funding says that they were definitely pushing for the former.

The fact that the PPA apparently got involved in the SunFirst fiasco shows how much they felt the need to "repay" Pokerstars and Full Tilt for their "generosity".

The PPA has been misrepresenting itself for 6+ years as a grassroots organization, when it is anything but that. It's actually the lobbying arm of the big online poker sites. It is highly dishonest for the PPA to represent itself as a grassroots, player-run group when in reality they answer to the big online poker sites whose interests ultimately come first.

I always knew that Stars and Tilt contributed a lot of money to the PPA, but I had no idea it was 99%. That is a game-changer to me. I would have really made this a big focus of my interview with Rich, had I known.

Why is 99% such a big issue?

If the players contributed something like 25%, you could at least reasonably believe that they had a real voice. 25% would still be enough funding to keep the organization relevant, even if Pokerstars were to get angry and pull funding. This would theoretically empower the PPA to act in the players' interests, and stand up to Pokerstars/Full Tilt if they got too demanding.

However, with player funding only comprising 1%, the PPA completely depends upon the online poker sites for funding. Basically, if Pokerstars/Full Tilt had pulled out in 2010, the PPA would have had almost zero funding, and therefore zero ability to lobby. Thus, the PPA was completely dependent upon those sites for its existence. It had to be very careful not to piss them off.

Let's put it another way:

Say you made $100,000 per year, and your rich dad gave you another $300,000 per year to live on. Let's also say you loved to party it up and do drugs all the time. If your dad objected to your lifestyle and threatened to cut you off unless you made major changes to your life, you might consider telling him to butt out, knowing that $100,000/year is still good money and you can get by just fine without his money and meddling. While the extra $300k from him is nice, it might be worth giving up in order to have complete independence.

But let's change the above and say you make $4,000 per year, and your dad gives you an additional $396,000. Furthermore, say that you have no skills and will never make more than minimum wage without your dad's help. You can't just tell your square dad to mind his own business. There's no way you can live on $4,000 per year, so then it pretty much becomes a choice between living in poverty or being rich and modifying your lifestyle to please your dad. Almost everyone in this spot would begrudgingly choose to acquiesce to dad's demands, and keep the much-needed money rolling in.

"Dad" Pokerstars is never going to let "son" PPA get out of line, or otherwise "son" goes broke.

There's no shame in "son" taking dad's money, unless "son" runs around town bragging how he's his own man and answers to no one.

---

I guess the funding element would seem like a big issue if it were news, but everyone closely following the legislation progress was already well aware of this, as I posted it myself when debating the Reid/Kyl bill:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1269

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866
It's a Player's alliance in name (and Rich and Patrick's effort) only, we aren't paying their bills, so our only voice is whether or not we participate in their calls to action.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEngineer
That's actually not true. PPA is a players' organization that receives donations from groups that benefit from our activities. In this respect, PPA is operating on the same principle as NRA and other similarly structured groups. Also, it's not like PPA is declining player donations. Anyone who wants to help pay the bills is certainly encouraged to ship some cash.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Actually it is quite true.

The NRA raised over $100M in 2010 from membership dues and only $57M from industry grants, they also reinvested almost that much on membership and fund raising drives:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-s-spent.html

Compare that to the PPA who raised $50k from member dues in 2010 and $5.2M from industry contributions, while spending nothing on grassroots fundraising or drives to increase membership.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_...01012_990O.pdf

The NRA derives twice as much of it's funding from it's members than from outside organizations, the PPA receives over one hundred times more funding from organizations than does from members, so if the goal was to structure the PPA to operate similarly to the NRA, the result was an epic failure.

---

The PPA isn't just funded by the industry though, it was founded by the industry (originally by PartyPoker), after the UIGEA, FTP and Stars didn't just 'influence' the PPA, they called all the shots.

But again, all the people that follow the Poker Legislation forums and execute the Daily Action Plan are well aware of this, it's not something they brag about, but it certainly isn't news.

Obviously that influences their strategy in the ways that you indicate, including actively opposing State legislation to authorize poker (California, Florida, e.g.) when their hope was that Reid and Kyl could sneak a Federal bill through which only required a blackout period rather than a ban on sites that continued accepting US customers after the UIGEA.

But they always justified that strategy as also being in the best interest of the players, that without a Federal bill we would be left playing on Tribal or State lottery monopoly sites, with prohibitive rake due to lack of competition.

I for one never bought those justifications, I think we'd have been better off just getting poker authorized at the State level first and then asking Congress to pass a bill that allowed for competition, but the rank and file just seemed to trust that the PPA were the experts, so if they said that was the way to jump the only question should be 'how high?'.

Been catching up this morning, after driving through that Midwest blizzard most of yesterday.

Druff, the reference to "Dan Druff" in a Toilet Bowl post wasn't the greatest idea. I concur, however, that Muny's outing of you might have had a personal element to it, and it sort of works in his favor. Now he's got grounds to refuse to return to one of your podcasts and deal with any of those questions you might ask.

One more of those I'd ask references those frequent claims about their million-plus membership. I'd then ask:

"Okay, how many of those million members actually pay dues?" I have genuine interest in knowing how many of those people are real PPA donors, and not just random names scraped via a series of Stars online freerolls. I get that it was an effective way to boost some empty numbers, but the "dues paying" count would provide an accurate indication of the PPA's real size.

Based on donfairplay's find, I'd guess it to be somewhere under 10,000. Note that that's not necessarily bad. I'm just curious about what the PPA's real size is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haleylh

Been catching up this morning, after driving through that Midwest blizzard most of yesterday.

Druff, the reference to "Dan Druff" in a Toilet Bowl post wasn't the greatest idea. I concur, however, that Muny's outing of you might have had a personal element to it, and it sort of works in his favor. Now he's got grounds to refuse to return to one of your podcasts and deal with any of those questions you might ask.

One more of those I'd ask references those frequent claims about their million-plus membership. I'd then ask:

"Okay, how many of those million members actually pay dues?" I have genuine interest in knowing how many of those people are real PPA donors, and not just random names scraped via a series of Stars online freerolls. I get that it was an effective way to boost some empty numbers, but the "dues paying" count would provide an accurate indication of the PPA's real size.

Based on donfairplay's find, I'd guess it to be somewhere under 10,000. Note that that's not necessarily bad. I'm just curious about what the PPA's real size is.

---

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...partanbump.gif

did Papas and Muny ever answer the financial and other questions they were dodging

Bump for advanced advertising purposes. More info coming out, including excerpts from a State of Utah investigation into resigned AG John Swallow. Stay tuned.

:popcorn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haleylh

Bump for advanced advertising purposes. More info coming out, including excerpts from a State of Utah investigation into resigned AG John Swallow. Stay tuned.

---

John Swallow IS GOD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haleylh

Bump for advanced advertising purposes. More info coming out, including excerpts from a State of Utah investigation into resigned AG John Swallow. Stay tuned.

---

John Swallow IS GOD

---

LOLS. If by "IS GOD," you mean, "is one of the slimiest fucking crooks ever to rise to a state attorney's general position," then py jingo, I agree with you!
Let's see, there's... :

a) the secret push-poll paid for by Swallow's benefactors, the payday-loan industry, to discredit one of that industry's opponents. Included stuff like, "If you knew Daw once referred to Mexicans as little brown people, would you vote for him?" Swallow's campaign manager ran the secret op.

b) the hundreds of thousands in laundered campaign contributions funneled through Swallow's shell entities;

c) the manual deletion of thousands of e-mails by Swallow himself from as many as eight different electronic devices, many of which were state property;

d) the multiple weekends spent on private trips paid for by political benefactors, which went unreported as "in kind" political contributions; several vacations on Jeremy Johnson's houseboat were among them;

e) the creation of false consulting-work timelines (while he was Utah AG) to try to cover the tracks of about $23,000 in bribe money he got from Johnson;

f) the intervention by Swallow and prior AG Mark Shurtleff into a banking-mortgage case -- the case against BOA was dismissed in exchange for a redone deal for the plaintiffs, who gave tens of thousands in contributions to Swallow, but the flip side is that the state dropped its class-against BOA and stiffed thousands of possible Utah homeowners who were battling illegal foreclosures.

There's lots, lots, lots more just like that. Report said he hung a virtual "For Sale" sign on the Utah AG office door. A separate story I found last night says that of the 70 largest corporate defendants in Utah civil actions in recent years, Swallow accepted large contributions from 26 of them in a practice called "fire insurance".

He even refused to resign until the day after his pension became vested, and then he tried to bill the state another $23,000 for his claimed efforts in recovering the e-mails that he himself deleted, thousands of which he still refuses to release to investigators. He and his lawyer's latest ploy is to wave the HIPAA flag and contend that there might be confidential medical information from Utahns who contacted him, distributed among all those e-mails.

Gonna be fun watching this guy go to trial, and you can bet it's coming.

A good warmup feature for this latest batch of info -- Jeremy Johnson's other bribery attempt that was directed toward Harry Reid. The story features plenty of poker tie-ins as well, plus details that $23.5K I mentioned that ended up in Utah AG John Swallow's pocket.

http://www.flushdraw.net/news/utah-c...bribe-stories/

And... this report ought to shake up the old Black Friday cobwebs:

Utah Corruption Investigation: SunFirst Processing Threatened a Year Prior to Black Friday

Forewarning: This rabbit hole goes deeper still.

And, as I flatly predicted in my lengthy reply to Rich yesterday over in the Lock thread, Sheldon's paid hired guns have already found the ABC News piece about the alleged Reid bribes and the online-poker backstory.

That took them what, five days? And I'm a bit surprised it took that long.

Absolutely.

Inevitable.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/1...into-reid-lee/

DOJ blocking the probe into Reid because... well, the DOJ is a partisan office, and Eric Holder doesn't want to go after his own party's Senate Majority Leader.

While a Republican Senator is also involved, he is a much smaller fish than Reid. Obviously this will be a disaster for the Democrats if this is proven, so Holder's office is refusing to help.

Great.

The greater details of the misbegotten PPA lobbying effort, in indirect support of the SunFirst processing operation. Or not so indirect; you be the judge. I just provide the excerpts.

A bit off topic but The PPA is back at it again sending emails out trying to get donations. I got this one just a bit ago which I had to screen shop clip in two parts so that is why it looks a bit weird but anyways:





I could unsubscribe my email address but I like to see when they send out this trash.

Be funny if they took Bitcoin.

Pappas could probably use a bowl of warm soup.

PPA is DD

Laterfag

Yeah, looks like they're pretty much done.

I wonder what the salaries of guys like Muny look like today.

The PPA was on the online poker gravy train for over 10 years.

Was a pretty sweet job to both get paid well AND have the respect of tons of online poker players who believed you were fighting for them.

I think guys like Muny even believed they were honestly doing it to help online poker become legalized, and that might actually be true, but the money coming in was from the most special of special interests. You can't get 99% of your funding from online poker sites, and claim you're working for the people.

Now it seems Pokerstars, who was basically the sugar daddy for the last several years, has decided it's not worth the money anymore.

I don't know if this is even a fair criticism. But it always annoyed me how this organization had been around for over a decade and was unable to get any legislation passed but when the issues arose over the past year or so with DFS, they were able to get a signed bill in to legalize it. Maybe it has nothing to do with the PPA's ability. but to look at how fast another industry was able to get legalized while poker has been unable to for a decade speaks poorly to how effective they are/were run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erin Micunt

I don't know if this is even a fair criticism. But it always annoyed me how this organization had been around for over a decade and was unable to get any legislation passed but when the issues arose over the past year or so with DFS, they were able to get a signed bill in to legalize it. Maybe it has nothing to do with the PPA's ability. but to look at how fast another industry was able to get legalized while poker has been unable to for a decade speaks poorly to how effective they are/were run.

---

A lot of folks cashed in some way from the poker industry. God bless.

PPW identified a gig as paid lobbyists. Were they looking out for the players who contributed? Lock Poker was the most outrageous example of their lack of evangelism and such. Not a fucking peep until PPA was challenged about their silence. Doubt they were taking Lock money but they might as well have been.

Ability? There were posts (maybe in this thread) of the PPA testifying in Congressional hearings. Cringeworthy fail. No charisma, leadership or saleslike persuasion. My recollection was of someone else blowing Muny & Pappas away - it was someone totally unexpected as I recall.

PPA just suckled at the teat of the poker sites. Nothing more.