As an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan in 2009 & 2010, I have founded a charity and fraternal organization as a way to honor the memories my friends who were killed in action during my deployment and to help fellow veterans dealing with the wounds (visible & invisible) that they carry with them on the years after their service. Through charitable gaming, I found a mechanism by which I can further this cause and organization that is plausible and self-sustaining. 

As I progress in this endeavor, it is frustrating to find obstacles placed in our path by the government, when one would think this is the type of organization and cause that the government would want to incentivize. It is further troubling to find that charities have frequently found the response from the government to be adversarial rather than helpful and receptive. It seems to me that VDACS should be a partner to the charities.

As my organization is a fraternal organization, and thus a 501(c)(10) with a requirement to direct a certain portion of our organizations proceeds to fraternal activities, I am do not understand the prohibition against this in 11VAC20-30-60.M. Am I to understand that my organization then cannot be allowed the opportunity to participate in charitable poker? 

Further— if my organization were able to participate in charitable poker, is it even worth the effort to do so with some of these restrictions on how it would be played? If (as under 11VAC20-30-100.H) re-buys are prohibited, if (as under 11VAC20-30-90.F) concurrent tournaments, and if (as under 11VAC20-30-100.D.2), will poker player even want to play with their options for style of play and stakes of games so severely limited in ways they have never experienced in poker play before? Why, in those cases, would they not opt for for-profit games with the rules and options to which they’re accustomed?

Additionally, if my organization would like to play poker as a means of raising funds, we would need a place to play and an experienced operator (which I am not) to manage the games. It only limits my options and creates more of an unnecessary burden if (as under 11VAC20-30-60.M) these cannot be connected and if (as under 11VAC20-30-90.G) I have to also find a registered landlord and permitted operation in the same jurisdiction as my organization as my principal office. So these two entirely separate entities don’t currently exist in our organization’s exact location we just aren’t eligible to participate? 

I cannot imagine the intent of VDACS is to disincentivize charitable poker to the point of it not existing, but if these draft regulations aren’t changed, that’s exactly what they are doing.

I have been fortunate to learn about this industry through the guidance of its experienced leaders. I would hope that VDACS consults these same leaders as it decides on its nexts steps with these regulations.