State legislation watch thread

[TBadr]

xpost from NVG

Originally Posted by Lavahands

Story from EGRMag

Apparently everest poker is looking to offer online poker in massachusetts.

[bgomez89]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

There is a whole California thread in the forum, you might look there.

I heard from a COPA representative that the California cardrooms and many of the tribes have joined in a coalition, i.e. COPA, to push a bill thru ..... so maybe there will be some movement.

I think there was yet another amendment this week ..... but the price tag is still $30,000,000 upfront against future revenue.

Missed this, ty

[PokerXanadu]

Some quick updates on the current state bills/actions:

NJ:
Passed in the Assembly, so it is ready for votes in both Senate and Assembly. Senate vote is expected this month, but Assembly may not until at least September, after the summer break. Some mumblings of opposition to the bill are coming from Gov. Christie's office, but this seems to be political side-stepping to delay his signature-or-veto decision until after the November Presidential Election since he is a candidate to be Romney's running mate and therefore can't be seen as pro-gambling expansion. Adelson is also pressuring Christie to oppose the bill. There is also some political talk of sending the issue to public referendum, which at this point would mean pushing it off until November 2013.
http://sboanj.com/index.asp?Key=2803
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...ling-12628.htm

CA
The powerful Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations has come out as opposed to the current bill without further amendment. They want the bill changed to remove the "blanket waiver of tribal sovereign immunity", to limit licenses to currently licensed b&m operators and to remove the provision allowing expansion to i-gaming beyond poker after two years.
http://www.adi-news.com/tribal-allia...n-bill/213868/
Meanwhile, bwin.Party has announced an agreement with the United Auburn Indian Community, a CA Indian tribe, to provide online poker if and when the CA legislation is passed.
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/bwin-p...censing-21706/

MA
The MA amendment to the state budget bill for Internet poker is confirmed dead. State Rep. Winslow intends to push legislation for it again next year.
http://news.bluffmagazine.com/the-fi...e-poker-26884/

NV
The march towards regulation and licensing of intrastate online poker rolls on. Cards in the air may be achieved by the end of the year. Ceasars doesn't really view NV intrastate i-poker as a viable business without more states coming online or federal legislation.
http://www.casinochoice.co.uk/2012/0...tive-business/

State Lotteries
They are struggling to figure out how to bring lottery sales online, with some states considering other gaming as well. None are talking about poker at this point.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...444589922.html

[raradevils]

Thanks for the update PX

[LastLife]

The powerful Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations is going to get screwed

California's projected deficit now over 16 billion.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by LastLife

California's projected deficit now over 16 billion.

So what?

The argument that the government should/will legalize/regulate i-poker because it is a gigantic source of revenue to them is getting really old. Let's face it - the argument has been made for years, and no legislation has been passed. And in the best case, the revenue generated by i-poker would be nothing compared to lotteries.

CA has a problem: how to appease the commercial and tribal gaming facilities and at the same time not shut out the horse racing industry altogether. All of these groups have enough hooks into the government to kill a bill that they perceive as unfair. COPA wants amendments as well (read here).

When they work out a compromise, then you get a law. Economics/Politics 101.

[LastLife]

Is there a reason other than to generate revenue that would make a state government regulate online gaming?

I doubt there will ever be a bill that all interests involved will agree on. I also think you are a little rusty on economics/politics 101. The big guy usually beats the crap out of the little guy.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by LastLife

Is there a reason other than to generate revenue that would make a state government regulate online gaming?

I doubt there will ever be a bill that all interests involved will agree on. I also think you are a little rusty on economics/politics 101. The big guy usually beats the crap out of the little guy.

The little guy isn't so little here. COPA is a coalition that includes not only the majority of the tribes, but the Commerce & Bicycle Clubs, et al. They are "bigger" than the HR interests.

As for your first question, you twisted my words. But I will get to the point: there ARE reasons for state government NOT to regulate online gaming DESPITE the revenue they could potentially generate.

[Uglyowl]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

So what?

The argument that the government should/will legalize/regulate i-poker because it is a gigantic source of revenue to them is getting really old. Let's face it - the argument has been made for years, and no legislation has been passed.

In reference to politics and/or economics 101; years is the "short run" unfortunately. My opinion is the first state getting going in internet gambling will be the biggest hurdle. After that other states will have a benchmark and real evidence of what and what will not happen if you legalize certain types of internet gaming.

[LastLife]

Big guy: State interests
Little guy(s): Gaming interest

California is in a very bad spot right now. There is going to be a referendum for tax increases on everyone. If those increases don't happen, then there will most likely be automatic cuts. When those automatic cuts start taking place, the bottom line is going to be the only thing that matters. If the tax increases are approved, California will still be facing the same cuts, because the tax increases won't even cut the deficit in half.

This is why I think that if state lawmakers decide that IGaming is on the table, they aren't waiting on anyone.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Some quick updates on the current state bills/actions:

...

State Lotteries
They are struggling to figure out how to bring lottery sales online, with some states considering other gaming as well. None are talking about poker at this point.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...444589922.html

Do not believe everything you see reported in the WSJ. I am not a subcriber, and could not see the article, but there are at least two State lotteries I know are talking about poker.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Do not believe everything you see reported in the WSJ. I am not a subcriber, and could not see the article, but there are at least two State lotteries I know are talking about poker.

Which ones?

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Do not believe everything you see reported in the WSJ. I am not a subcriber, and could not see the article, but there are at least two State lotteries I know are talking about poker.

Many WSJ articles are fully available if you access them via google:

States Up the Online Ante [google link]

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Which ones?

Thanks to sba for the Google work-around to the article. However, having read it, I must have missed where there was any conclusion that no lotteries are talking poker ....

As a matter of fact, both the lotteries chiefly discussed in the article, Illinois and Delaware are discussing poker. (Delaware's lottery is already invested in the B&M casino business.)

(Over all the WSJ article was excellent background reporting on the quotes from the lotteries. The salient point being not that the article focussed on adding p[oker or casino games, but rather the stakeholders in off-line sales having concerns about online sales coming at their expense. Different focus from whether or not lotteries will seek to enter online gaming.)

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Do not believe everything you see reported in the WSJ. I am not a subcriber, and could not see the article, but there are at least two State lotteries I know are talking about poker.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...2MDaxydYDt45Mg