The California legislature is considering rival bills that would legalize online poker in the state, allowing the games to be offered by Indian casinos and card clubs.
Two bills would allow online poker websites that players could access from anywhere in the state where the internet is available.
Previous efforts were killed because gaming tribes could not agree on the terms of the bill, and gaming tribes pretty much set the rules for such things in Sacramento. However, both efforts also include representatives of the state’s cardrooms, which also want a piece of the action.
Together they formed COPA (California Online Poker Alliance), an organization that no longer exists, but which did much of the spadework for several years that made such a bill possible.
One gaming group that is being left out, because it doesn’t have the political clout to force itself to be included is the horseracing industry.
According to Senator Lou Correa, recently named chairman of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee, interviewed by the Press-Democrat, “There are a lot of moving parts. But we will work hard, and I am hopeful.”
Correa replaces Senator Roderick Wright, longtime champion on online poker, who has stepped down from his duties after being convicted on eight counts of committing fraud by claiming to live in a district he didn’t live in.
Projections say that internet poker could produce $263 million annually shortly after it is legalized and increase to $384 million. There are an estimated 750,000 to 1 million players in the Golden State, whose numbers will likely increase if what they are doing is legal.
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuila Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians support one such bill, AB 2291, sponsored by Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer.
Senator Correa is sponsoring SB 1366, which is supported by the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians.
The bills differ in some elements. The Assembly bill would require that an operator pay a one-time fee of $5 million for a license. The Senate bill would require $10 million. The Assembly bill limits the number of poker websites while the Senate bill does not.
According to a letter from three tribal chairmen, “As most of you know, the exact language of an introduced bill rarely if ever is what makes it through the process, We fully expect the bill to evolve as our conversations continue.”
Isadore Hall III, chairman of the Assembly Government Organization Committee agrees, and last week said “I believe it’s possible in 2014,” but added, “a great deal of work and progress and there remains a lot of work ahead of us before one of these bills actually gets the blessing of the governor’s signature.”
He was speaking to the iGaming Legislative Symposium in Sacramento, a group of Indian leaders and lobbyists, which looked at the issue of online gaming.
Speaker Bo Mazzetti, chairman of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, said he doesn’t expect online gaming to significantly affect brick and mortar casinos. Of a bill, he said, “We’re there. We have some minor things to work out. We’re 99 percent there.”
Mark Macarro, chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians is not so sanguine about the effects and says he would prefer that online gaming never be legalized. He concedes that is unlikely to happen.
However he told delegates of the symposium, “”We are talking about possibly destabilizing the one and only thing that’s ever really worked for tribal governments. It’s hard to really overemphasize how key that is.”
Some tribes don’t want to wait for the official sanction of the law. The Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueño Mission Indians, which last month closed its casino in San Diego County after not being allowed to declare bankruptcy, is saying it may launch a website ahead of legislation.
California Governor Jerry Brown’s office is trying to discourage that kind of talk, largely without success.
Some tribes, including San Manuel, claim that online gaming is outside of the gaming issues contained within tribal state gaming compacts and would be subject to state taxation, just like any other commercial operation in the state.
Mazzetti agrees with that. “This is not Indian gaming under IGRA. It’s not Indian gaming under federal law,” he said recently in an interview with journalist Dave Palermo.
As mentioned previously, neither of the two bills being considered would give the racing industry a place at the table as eligible for a license. However, according to Josh Rubenstein, spokesman for a coalition of racing interests, interviewed by the Bloodhorse, “That’s the initial language. But the way bills start out and the way they finish, as we have seen, are usually quite different.” He added, “We’re very aware of what’s going on, and we have a strategy for how to make sure our voice is heard in California. All we’re looking for is a level playing field.”
