I think it is important that the PPA take a look at leading the effort in States that are ripe for change, rather than focus so much on places like California, where monied interests are already heavily influencing the issue, and where the PPA's presence does little to sway the issue one way or another.
States like Washington, with strict prohibitions, need the strength of leadership from the organization that purports to represent the players.
While a Federal bill would be ideal, I really can't get behind the Reid/Kyl bill one bit. You have laid out a lot of reasons already, yet you seem content to accept anything given. First and foremost are, as mentioned, restrictions of freedom and penalties. To me, this really is an issue of freedom above all. All of the excuses government gives for banning online poker are far better addressed by regulation than prohibition. Players are still playing, and we have no protections whatsoever. Our balances are always at risk, underage and problem gamblers go on unfettered. There needs to be regulation.
But the Reid/Kyl bill still leaves us lobbying at the state level in most states. I don't think it is a reasonable assumption that the States will all jump on board. With only a couple of states even discussing it, it still seems years away. Also the Reid/Kyl bill is devoid of any real player protections, at least none I see in the summary. It does a good job of dividing up the spoils for the industry, but falls well short of being a good piece for consumers.
It would be naive to think there won't be taxes, and those taxes won't be passed on to the players.
I applaud the efforts of the PPA working hard at the federal level, but it will always be a states' rights issue in the end, and we will need to fight for our rights again at the state level as well.