Lobbyist hired to discredit current legalized online poker, taking fight to Twitter

[Dan Druff]

Meet Cheri Jacobus.



She is a lobbyist, and I'm ashamed to say, typically works for the GOP.

She has been employed by an unknown party (maybe Sheldon Adelson) to discredit the currently-legalized online poker rooms, and legalized online poker in general.

She is tweeting about it today:

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus

Obviously she is highly biased and a paid lobbyist, but she did raise a point that concerns me:

Cheri Jacobus ‏@CheriJacobus 3h
PPA was offered a demo & briefing (same FBI got) open to press & live stream to PPA members plus Q&A. They refused.

Cheri Jacobus ‏@CheriJacobus 2h
It's almost as if PPA wants to protect online poker cheaters among us rather than honest players.What abt innocent 1st-timers?

Cheri Jacobus ‏@CheriJacobus 1h
PPA refused demo then insisted we break the law, tape ourselves and present it to them as "proof" the FBI letters are correct


She could be full of crap (or twisting the story), but if her group (whatever it is) wanted to present a live streamed demo as to how cheating and money laundering could be done via existing legalized online poker rooms, why did the PPA refuse to watch it?

I doubt they were going to show anything groundbreaking (probably just standard chip dumping and collusion), but shouldn't the PPA want to see the ammunition is going to use against them?

Given the amazing incompetence displayed by some of the existing legal poker sites, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to catch anything.

She is making the point that the current system of regulation is poor, at least where it comes to catching cheating and money laundering. I have to agree.

Ignoring these arguments will be at the peril of our legalization fight, as they are likely to come up many times in the future, and without a counter other than "The sites will catch this, don't worry", it could destroy a lot of legalization efforts.

[TheEngineer]

She didn't want to stream an event. She obviously doesn't need PPA's permission to do that, and we'd obviously watch it (which I told her). Rather, she wanted PPA to host it, publicize it, and stream it. When I said that it had to be on a US regulated site, she replied that, though it's to a demonstration of collusion and money laundering, it has to be on a free money site like Yahoo.

Essentially, they want PPA to help publicize and legitimize their effort. And, they are not seeking to improve the game or its security. Rather, they say flat out that they have irrefutable proof that online poker cannot be offered safely and that it must be banned by Congress.

[Dan Druff]

She didn't want to stream an event. She obviously doesn't need PPA's permission to do that, and we'd obviously watch it (which I told her). Rather, she wanted PPA to host it, publicize it, and stream it. When I said that it had to be on a US regulated site, she replied that, though it's to a demonstration of collusion and money laundering, it has to be on a free money site like Yahoo.

Essentially, they want PPA to help publicize and legitimize their effort. And, they are not seeking to improve the game or its security. Rather, they say flat out that they have irrefutable proof that online poker cannot be offered safely and that it must be banned by Congress.

Thanks for the response.

Yahoo?! I am speechless.

Talk about totally falsely portraying the situation on her part.

I don't blame the PPA at all for their actions here, and I believe your account of what occurred.

[TheEngineer]

Cheri Jacobus ‏@CheriJacobus 1h
PPA refused demo then insisted we break the law, tape ourselves and present it to them as "proof" the FBI letters are correct

This was in response to my suggestion that their demo take place on a US licensed real-money site.

[TheEngineer]

Talk about totally falsely portraying the situation on her part.

She's all about the "gotcha" moment (which I didn't provide).

For example, when you and I debated, we both went through the facts. Were one of us to reference an FBI memo, the other would reply on the substance of the memo. Cheri, OTOH, referenced an FBI memo on my FB page, wildly mischaracterizing it. When I replied that it didn't say what she thought it said, she replied with "so, I see you're now calling the FBI liars."

Right now, it's two people and a bad website. I think they're trolling for Adelson money. Some are treating Adelson's pledge to spend whatever it takes to ban online poker an an RFQ (request for quotes).

[Steve-O]

Rich you have a lot of patience, better chance of getting a 2 year-old to eat broccoli than to have her go off message or answer a question. She keeps citing that FBI "OPINION" made by a single individual if I remember correctly as if it is some kind of case law that has already been through the Supreme Court

[John Mehaffey]

Rich, you absolutely have a lot of patience. You handle these situations quite well.

I am considering writing something up about this situation. You call her a lobbyist and she denies it. I assume there is no way to know if she is in fact being paid and not just on some tangent?

I had never heard of her until today but she looks like someone that is easy to discredit.

[Steve-O]

I would more call her a strategist, which is basically a political mercenary, who will do whatever you ask them to do including lobbying. She has a regular column at The Hill, but it's all opinion pieces.

[TheEngineer]

Rich, you absolutely have a lot of patience. You handle these situations quite well.

I am considering writing something up about this situation. You call her a lobbyist and she denies it. I assume there is no way to know if she is in fact being paid and not just on some tangent?

I had never heard of her until today but she looks like someone that is easy to discredit.

Each state has a formal definition of a lobbyist. A strategist can do some lobbying-like stuff without having to be a registered lobbyist. Newt Gingrich's business drew attention for this in his '12 presidential run: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newt-gin...a-lobbyist-but

[JoeD]

One of the best twitter reads right now - HalelyLH v. Jacobus.