Actually, because there are no federal laws explicitly dealing with the issue - unlike say lottery law, preventing other states from selling lottery tickets cross border, the dormant commerce clause could be inferred by the courts to be controlling, and Nevada might be allowed to poach California players.

Anyone that says 'this is how the courts would rule' is kidding themselves, we wouldn't even have IGRA if the pundits had been correct on California v Cabazon.

California allows Horse-racing to use the legal fiction of advanced deposit wagering to make internet wagers off track 'legally' take place at the track, so tribes could assert the same privilege.

But for us it doesn't really matter how they would rule, just having a federal suit filed would suddenly make this a legitimate federal issue, and Congress might be forced to get involved.

Compacts do not mention poker because tribes do not need to form compacts to offer Class II gaming. Regulation of Class II gaming is done exclusively by the NIGC. Any law that requires a tribe to obtain a license for poker from a state regulatory agency violates the principles of IGRA.

FYP. There's the rub.

The issues of prominence for Indian tribes in regards to i-gambling and i-poker are:

1. Sovereignty: Under IGRA the tribes can self-regulate all their gaming under only Federal oversight. The only time a state gains the right to some regulatory authority over the tribal casinos is when it is gained through the tribal-state compact wherein the tribe grants this authority as part of the exclusivity terms. This state regulatory authority is largely limited to access to financial record-keeping for revenue-sharing audits and some consumer protection oversight.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state regulatory authority over tribal sites as it does over the non-tribal sites. This, in their view, is a violation of their sovereignty as recognized under IGRA.

2. Taxation: Under IGRA the tribes cannot be assessed any taxes on their gaming. Most tribal-state compacts do include some revenue-sharing in exchange for exclusivity.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state site taxes on the tribal sites as it does on the non-tribal sites. While one can argue that the tribal sites will be operating outside of tribal lands, such a state-tribal arrangement is usually accomplished through compact negotiations, not imposition of law. Creating a law that enforces specific taxes for tribal gaming on non-tribal land harks back to a clear violation of tribal sovereignty and may well be illegal under IGRA.

3. Exclusivity: Currently, tribal-state compacts often grant exclusivity of some or all gaming to tribal casinos in exchange for revenue sharing. I-gaming legislation, such as the CA bill, open up player access to all gaming within the state without regard to such exclusivity terms.

4. Equal market access: Due to the large entry fees and/or qualification requirements in the legislative bills, smaller tribes (or in some cases all tribes) will not qualify for the i-gaming licenses. This is a violation of IGRA, which grants the right to every tribe to run the same gaming which is legal for any other entity in the state. Once again the question of gaming on non-tribal lands comes into play. Is there a difference between a player choosing to place their wagers on the tribal servers over the Internet and choosing to drive to the tribal casino to place their wagers on the tribal tables?

Although poker has Class II gaming status under IGRA, i-poker is clearly a special case that enters the realm of a new category of gaming. The current CA bill is for all i-gaming, not just poker, as is the NJ bill. The i-poker only bills are usually structured in such a manner that it will only take a legislative change to one definition in the bill, "authorized game", to expand to additional gaming.

The concerns of the tribes over i-gaming legislation are legitimate, and will take intensive consideration to properly resolve, either through the legislative process or the courts.

Would a federal law automatically invalidate exclusivity compacts?

That's one of the concerns. The i-poker bill helps this in some regards as it could make all other forms of i-gambling illegal, thus protecting the compacts from state legislation. On the other hand, it would set up the framework for expansion later to other forms of licensed i-gambling without such protection. It also begs the question of whether or not i-poker itself draws away the tribal casino customers, thus violating the exclusivity in spirit.

This seems to make the opt in or opt out clauses headaches to draft.

I believe that IGRA requires a compact for all Class III gaming regardless of whether exclusivity is part of the deal or not. States are usually happy to grant exclusivity because nobody wants a casino in their backyard, hence, if they can stick them on some tribal land they don't really give two chits about and collect a nice stream of revenue for essentially doing nothing, it's a win-win for them.

But I am far more concerned with the "FYP" part of your post. You steadfastly adhere to the idea that that a wager occurs in the location it is placed and in the location in which it is received. I can trace this idea back to the DOJ of the lunatic who was president even though he didn't really win the election. That was about a decade ago.

Is there some statute to back this up? How about some relevant case law? If the answer to both is no, are you sure this DOJ feels the same way?

DE,

The DOJ in NY has gotten away with using the NY statute that says that if the wager is placed in NY, the gambling occurred in NY, in charging offshore sports betting sites for violating the IGBA.

But as you know, the tribes in NY were able to say that NY gambling statutes are regulatory and don't extend to the player, in order to offer poker on tribal land in NY.

So even in NY, which has an applicable statute, it's not clear which way the courts would hold. There's no right answer until the high court weighs in, so the FYP was clearly premature.

Interestingly, it was probably because of that statute and the case law upholding it that the DOJ chose NY to prosecute PokerStars et al, but if regulatory statutes don't apply to instate tribes, how can they apply to foreign businesses?

Further, if they believe the business of online poker to be occurring in the home of the player, why aren't they going after the sites for a slam dunk tax evasion charge without needing to prove poker is gambling?

By not charging offshore sites for tax evasion, they are all but admitting that the business is not occurring in their tax jurisdiction, so how can it be occurring in their criminal jurisdiction?

/derail

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

What's the likelihood of this passing?

Is there any specific date we are looking forward to right now?

something happened yesterday. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...2_history.html

What does "Referred to Com. on G.O." mean?

Looks like Committee on Governmental Organization:
http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/

From the agenda:
http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/agenda
Looks like the committee meets every other Tuesday (next being 3/27). Currently SB 1463 is not on the 3/27 or 4/10 agendas though =(

On the plus side, Wright is the chair of the committee.

if I was a state legislator I'd just change that 2/3 vote part to something way lower.

like, c'mon guys, common sense.

Just noticed that part, I guess the day we are looking for starts today. Atleast this means there's still a small chance they want to rush this thru like crazy, didn't know they couldn't act until a month after print. It's a longshot but Nevada is gearing up and CA wants to start the cashflow this year so who knows.

Hoping for lots of action in April. More likely in the summer.

Maybe a committee hearing in next month or two .. and then june for the rush through. After that it is all election. No assembly bill, so that could be an issue .. Both have to pass and I'm not sure it can be pushed that easily through both.

A long shot for sure, but really we don't have much else going on so fun to dream. I don't think Gov. will veto, CA is a fairly liberal state and doesn't get much into the vice thing.

What about tribal opposition? Will that have any influence?

They have major influence that's why i think this has little chance to pass.

Remember, some tribes want online. Of course they want it all and maybe just one tribe wants it all. It's a sausage factory and you don't want to look inside.

The chance the bill as to pass, is much more complex than the tribes want it or not. Well funded competing interests and Las Vegas as not weighed in yet. Once, Nevada is up and running I'm sure there interests will be well funded in CA. To be profitable, Nevada needs the liquidity of CA. I agree, though other than budget concerns it is not likely. 200 million is small in terms of budget deficit, but it is some piece of the pie, and does not require raising taxes so really free money.

There will be some more movement I'm certain, the committee/senate head are on board that helps will moving the bill along.

Many, not all, tribes were OK with last year's bill. I suspect this year's bill is a different story.

Found this article .. from CardPlayer ..

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...ded-for-battle

Small quote ..
End of the article a glimmer of hope we can get to see something next month ..


Usual friction but maybe something is going on and better than it is dead!

Thanks for the article. Nothing too exciting for the short term but sounds like at least something is happening. Two more quotes that sound promising:

"Intratstate Internet Poker 2-9-10" is a main link on the Senate GO page! It contains a bunch of transcript links to the testimonies on 2/9/10.

http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/intrastateinternetpoker2910

This seems like a very thorough handout on impacts of taxes and rake:

http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/sites/sgov...cunningham.pdf

^^^ nice document little dated with effect of black friday. I hope the politicians will read and attempt to understand the logic in it, but government like rec players mostly fail and learning even basic concepts.