Just other states:

But, since it would take a vote of both houses to implement it anyway, they could potentially vote to pool with foreign countries as well. Really, this provision isn't designed to allow interstate pooling so much as it is designed to make it CA law that interstate pooling and opting in or out of a federal bill requires a CA Congressional vote (i.e., can't be done by Governor's choice alone).

my crystal ball has me in cali soon

any update on this?

Can't find any updates yet but Cakewalk supplied us this sweet link to a CA gov site that seems updated daily.

Will Ceasar's/Harrahs try to buy out a current casino in CA so they can open a site?

They already operate Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians in San Diego County.

Net poker's prospects probably lie beyond '12

Key word there is operate. Rincon is conspicuously missing from COPA. But this since the new bill does not seek to limit licenses, perhaps that doesn't matter.

Here's a link to "Today's Events" on the CA legislation webpage. Please let's grind the Daily Action Plan a little harder it's a bad time to be slowing down, myself included. Thanks

Today's Events:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/todevnt.html

Due to the quantity of terrible poker puns I have to, by default, give this guy zero credibility. So sick of hearing "all in," "fold," "cards in the air," and... in news articles.

Indian tribes concerned about state efforts on online poker

Lohse called a proposed online gaming bill a "slap in the face" to California's 110 federally recognized tribes.

The proposed legislation, known as the Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act of 2012, would legalize online gaming in California. The measure lays out a price of $30 million for each online gaming license, credited against net gaming revenues for the first three years of operation.

Hart, who represents tribal casinos, said the measure would require tribes to "waive tribal sovereignty" to be licensed in California. He said tribes, which have the exclusivity to operate casinos, will "decline to participate if the waver stands."

Hart predicted tribes would sue if the measure passes as now written.

... Sheila Morago, executive director of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association. "Tribes are still (hurting) from the loss of revenue from the recession..."

this sounds like a huge hurdle

the best thing casinos can do is offer a STATE WIDE SHARED PLAYER POOL.. and win players over with rakeback/vip point type benefits..

But if they can get the bill over that hurdle and passed, when the tribes file their suit (which they would surely win) then internet poker is a legitimate federal issue rather than a pork project for NV/NJ.

Congress would need to at least readdress IGRA, possibly/preferably making online gambling class IV - giving states the authority to regulate and/or tax tribal involvement.

While they are at it, they could/should give states some IHA type of authority over accepting interstate wagers where it is legal - giving states/tribes the remedy of going to court to break up attempted monopolies.

Aside from the fact that the Federal government is not terribly concerned/effective in pushing out any kind of legislation these days, what is the reason the tribes wouldn't scream bloody hell over the bold-ed part?

None that I can think of, they are going to be screaming so much bloody hell in CA I'll be surprised if the bill even gets passed, but the larger tribes (or larger pocket books) have indicated that they would rather have the opportunity to compete on an even playing field that the alternative of Reid 2010 type bill which would leave them on the sidelines for two years before even being allowed to apply for a license.

So they would be against it I agree, but it might be seen as the better choice of two evils.

This is completely false. All of the incarnations of the Reid phantom bill of 2010 allowed tribes that operated B&M gaming facilities of a certain size (500 machines I think, which is not much at all) to apply for licenses immediately.

Yes and no - Harry did a good job hiding it, they allowed any casino/racetrack/riverboat to apply for a license through a qualified body, but the qualified bodies were given the authority to require that all equipment must be located within their jurisdiction (state), and the licensing bodies that qualified (X percent of total US gambling revenue) were NV, NJ and (perhaps CA?) since tribes couldn't combine their revenue.

So unless the Mohegan tribe e.g. relocated it's equipment and jobs to AC, they would have had to wait the for this restriction by licensing bodies to be removed.

It's just not hard for the Mohegan tribe to do that - basically the same thing as running the Mohegan Sun as Pocono Downs in Pennsylvania.

Tribes weren't happy about Harry's thing, but they certainly aren't going to go for "poker is now a class IV game" either as you are suggesting.

GAMBLING: Two pending state bills toss the dice [The Press-Enterprise]

SB 1463: Legalizes online poker no later than Jan. 1, 2014. The goal is to raise $200 million for the state general fund.

SB 1390 [leginfo.ca.gov]: Legalizes sports wagering in California. Federal law currently bans sports wagering in all but four states.

Which is why I agreed with you when said the tribes will scream bloody hell, but they are already screaming bloody hell over the current federal bills, including Reid's which called for a yearly $5M bribe to some 'save the Indians' fund to pay them off.

Any bill that requires them to be regulated by anyone other than themselves or taxed is going to be opposed by the tribes (some would oppose it even untaxed and self regulated, as a threat to their B&M), but if CA could somehow pass their bill despite powerful tribal lobbying groups, Congress should be able to pass a bill supporting the state's right to tax and regulate internet poker differently than live poker.

The tax issues could probably be avoided by states moving to a deposit tax revenue system, rather than asking the tribal governments to pay a tax, all deposits could be made on the state run advance deposit wagering website, and directed from there to the specific casino site.

The regulation issue alone probably wouldn't get the law ruled unconstitutional, since the state wouldn't be regulating a business which only occurs on tribal land, it's also occurring on the off reservation player's PC.

My guess would be that the CA bill doesn't even pass as it written though, they will probably arrive at some compromise where they surrender some sovereignty for regulation in exchange for maintaining the 'governments don't tax governments' status quo, in which they instead give a small share of net profits rather than pay taxes on gross revenue.

In the context of tribal gaming, states do not have that right.

True, but does internet gaming (not intranet gaming) qualify as tribal gaming?

California kind of opened the door for the tribes to argue that it is by inventing the legal fiction of advanced deposit wagering, but it's certainly not a slam dunk case that the tribes have a 'right' to to offer gaming on the internet, tax free and self regulated.

Both sides should be motivated to work out a compromise prior to either the courts ruling or Congress clarifying, but it would probably be better for us if they don't.

Actually, such a suit would probably get a more complex ruling.

However, the threat of the suit, or actually filing it, could be used to put political pressure to obtain concessions in the process of getting such a bill passed. Alternately, filing such a suit could enable them to get an injunction preventing the roll-out of ipoker until such time as the lawsuit is resolved.
The one California compact which I skimmed dealt exclusively with Class III gaming. Even in 1999, it explicitly denied offering such games over the internet "unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law." However, the brief mention of the internet restriction may be limited to only those games "authorized under state law to the California State Lottery".

Poker is a Class II game. I would consider it unlikely that any of the California State-Tribe compacts granted tribes the exclusive right to operate Class II games. The compact I skimmed did grant the tribe, or other tribes (which could also get a compact), the exclusive right, within the (specified) geographical area served by the tribe, only for Class III games.

Should CA ipoker be passed, the courts, ultimately, would likely end up ruling that the tribes have the right to offer internet poker to people physically on tribal land (as stated in the IGRA) without being subject to state taxes, but to offer it to people who are not physically on tribal land they must be licensed by the state/feds in accordance with any applicable laws/regulations. Part of obtaining such a license to serve customers not on their land is agreeing to be taxed under the terms of the license.

While not exactly equivalent, an argument that tribes would have the right to offer ipoker to people outside their own tribal lands is analogous to saying: Nevada is sovereign, so their licensees can offer ipoker into California without being licensed, or taxed, in California, and without complying with California laws/regulations. Obviously, in the absence of federal laws explicitly dealing with such an issue, the argument is flawed. This does not mean that the tribes will not argue that it is, or should be, so.

Hart's statement (1st quote above) that "the measure would require tribes to 'waive tribal sovereignty'", is just wrong. The tribes are sovereign on their own land, not everywhere. Passing the measure would automatically give them the right to offer ipoker on their own land (via IGRA), but not in other areas of California.