John Pappas of the PPA Voices Ambiguity on Federal Ban
The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) plans to resist any federal legislation aiming to eliminate online gaming, even if it has an exception for online poker. This is according to John Pappas, the president of the organization that advocates for the rights of online poker players across the US.
While it appeared Pappas expressed this opinion, subsequent statements in an interview made his stance less clear. Pappas was responding to whispers about a proposal to pass a federal law banning remote gambling with an exception for poker during the approaching lame duck session in Congress. Various speakers at the G2E gambling convention in Las Vegas relayed the gossip, including Bally Technologies CEO John Connelly, who anticipated an attempt to make all forms of gaming illegal in November.
Pappas cautioned the gaming industry, stating, "There's certainly potential for some mischief to occur [during the lame duck session] and everyone in the gambling industry should stay vigilant about what Congress could do." A lame duck session is a period when Congress meets after elections have occurred, but before new representatives' terms commence.
Several forum contributors were taken aback by Pappas' statement, interpreting it as a shifting away from the PPA's declared objectives. In 2012, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) explored the possibility of such a bill, the PPA voiced wholehearted support.
Federal Carve-out Supported, Or Is It?
Nevertheless, Pappas later clarified his position. Kind of.
"If there was a bill that outlawed online casino games but legalized online poker at the federal level, we would back that unreservedly," he informed NJ.com. Yet, didn't he earlier say that without casino games, online poker isn't viable? It's confounding.
Pappas explained that a "carve-out" for poker that didn't legalize the game at a federal level would amount to little more than the continuation of the present situation, where each state would have the authority to determine whether it wanted to legalize and regulate, with the exception that online casino gaming would no longer be an option for them. In Pappas' opinion, online poker requires the supplementary revenue provided by online casinos to thrive on a state level.
"We're going to defend the interests of poker players to the fullest, but a poker-only model in the US might not be sustainable in the long term," he reasoned. "We as a poker community need to keep in mind that the prosperity of poker often depends on other forms of gaming. If you eliminate all other games in the US market, investment and interest would significantly decrease."
As expected, the PPA probably needs to maintain its unwavering stance against Adelson and the RAWA advocates up until the bitter end. If RAWA is passed by Congress, the PPA might be forced to compromise and negotiate a carve-out for poker.
However, the PPA may face a more serious threat than the lame duck session: the Republicans predicted to take over the Senate next year, ending Reid's support for online poker. As a major contributor to the Republicans, this would surely benefit Adelson's campaign.
"I believe that puts poker in an even shakier situation," Pappas remarked. At least his views were unequivocal this time.
Read also:
- Will Topp be the next Terodde?
- Kompany's Relation to Schenk Explained:
- Permission granted for HSV.
- Millions demanded by HSV handball athletes.
