\nA new online poker bill has arrived in California courtesy of Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (pictured right). Titled the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015 (read it here), the bill differs from Mike Gatto\u2019s AB 9 legislation by allowing state racetracks to join Indian tribes and card clubs in the state\u2019s online poker industry.<\/p>\n
\tMore importantly, the AB 167 bill contains no specific \u2018bad actor\u2019 clause, at least, not the boilerplate prohibition of any company that accepted wagers from state residents after Dec. 31, 2006. Instead, it deems companies\/people to be ineligible if they have \u201ccontemptuously defied a legislative investigative body\u201d of a US state, the federal government or a foreign jurisdiction \u201cwhen that body is engaged in the investigation of crimes relating to poker, official corruption related to poker activities or criminal profiteering activity or organized crime.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDitto for anyone convicted \u2018in a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony for either having accepted a bet over the internet in violation of United States of California law, or having aided or abetted that unlawful activity.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThe bill also doesn\u2019t contain any mention of the dreaded phrase \u201ccovered assets,\u201d clauses that block the use of software, brands, databases and other tools of the trade if said tools had anything to do with any felonious activity. As is, the bill offers the least possible resistance to Amaya Gaming and its new PokerStars property of any California online poker bill to date.<\/p>\n
\tNot so lucky is any tribe that operates a gaming site that accepts wagers from players not physically present on Indian lands, which would be ruled ineligible. This clause is directed squarely at the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel and their Desert Rose Bingo site, which utilizes virtual private network technology to interact with gamblers outside its tribal boundaries.<\/p>\n
\tFELONIES FOR PLAYERS
\n\tAlarmingly, the bill warns that \u201cany violation\u201d of the Act would be punishable as a felony. The language states that \u201cthe offer or play of any gambling game provided over the Internet that is not an authorized Internet poker game permitted by the state\u201d would be prohibited. For Californians, merely patronizing an unauthorized site is a felony, \u201cpunishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThe bill would establish an Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Fund, into which would flow an unspecified percentage of revenue from civil penalties to finance future enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
\tNITTY GRITTY
\n\tThe bill defines eligible operators as any federally recognized California Indian tribe that has operated a gaming facility for the past five years, plus licensed card rooms and any \u201cCalifornia-owned and operated horseracing association\u201d that is based in the state. Any combo of the above three categories is also eligible to team up on a joint venture.<\/p>\n
\tLicenses would be valid for four-year terms with automatic four-year renewals, although all initial licenses will be deemed \u2018temporary\u2019 and valid for only two years. All licenses will take effect on the same date, one year after regulations are written. The regulations need to be finished within 270 days of the bill\u2019s passage.<\/p>\n
\tLicensees would be required to make an upfront deposit of $10m, which would be credited against quarterly payments of 8.5% tax on gross gaming revenue. Additional regulatory fees of undetermined value would also be imposed.<\/p>\n
\tWhile the bill refers to intrastate online poker, it doesn\u2019t contain the explicitly anti-interstate language of previous bills, offering hope that other states may one day be allowed to tap into California\u2019s vast player pool.<\/p>\n
\tThe bill is deemed an urgency statute, requiring 2\/3 approval in both legislative chambers. The bill has future dates with both the appropriation and fiscal committees.<\/p>\n
\tNOW WHAT?
\n\tIn a statement accompanying the bill, Jones-Sawyer said the bill represented \u201ca new starting point\u201d following \u201ca very thoughtful and collaborative discussion process that included substantial input from both the state\u2019s Department of Justice and Gambling Control Commission.\u201d We eagerly await the verdicts of the two principal antagonists in this debate: the tribes that support PokerStars\u2019 participation and those vehemently opposed to the idea.<\/p>\n
\tUPDATE: Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro issued a statement saying there was \u201cmuch for tribes to dislike about this bill.\u201d Macarro said the bill \u201cdisregards important principles from a broad coalition of respected tribes and card rooms that help prevent corporations and entities that previously violated federal law from profiting from tainted software, brands, and databases derived from illegal activity.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cTribes have been steadfast in the principle that online poker be consistent with California\u2019s longstanding public policy of limited gaming, and that means keeping it to just tribes and card rooms. California voters have always had the final say on gaming expansion and they have already rejected expansion of gaming for horse racing.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tRobert Martin, who represents the pro-PokerStars Morongo Band of Mission Indians, told Pechanga.net\u2019s Dave Palermo he was encouraged by the bill and said the softening of the \u2018bad actor\u2019 language \u201cgoes a long way\u201d toward garnering the approval of his coalition.<\/p>\n
No replies were posted for this topic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A new online poker bill has arrived in California courtesy of Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (pictured right). Titled the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015 (read it here), the bill differs from Mike Gatto\u2019s AB 9 legislation by allowing state…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-other-games"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumarchives.tmsites.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}