Thank you!

I think he mentioned it during the hearing too. I can't be sure because I read the testimony the day before, so I could have just applied that line to the hearing.

he did. he asked for 3mos. earlier entry..

In certain Tribal-State compacts the tribes are granted exclusive rights to operating certain types of games; they pay the state for this exclusivity. As an example, I will use the AZ compact, with the appropriate section quoted at the end of this post.

I believe that tribes contend that AZ opting into a federal i-poker system goes against the spirit of this compact - they would be paying for exclusive rights without getting them. What they seem to want is an exclusive rights to operating i-poker (presumably limited to AZ) for a certain period of time while they renegotiate the compact with AZ. This may involve taking or threatening to take AZ to court if they cannot to a speedy agreement; hence they want time to agree to fair terms.

I put the words "believe", "seem", and "presumably" in quotes because this particular issue does not appear in their earlier lobbying literature, and the one sentence blurb on page 15 of the testimony on Stevens is somewhat ambiguous to me.

In a nutshell, I don't see this as asking for a monopoly. It is another one of these not so insignificant issues that federal legislation must address.

Unless of course you think it's OK for the government to keep on breaking the compacts that they make with the tribes.

******** AZ Compact ********

"(h) Additional Gaming Due to Changes in State Law with Respect to Persons Other Than
Indian Tribes.

(1) If, on or after May 1, 2002, State law changes or is interpreted in a final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction or in a final order of a State
administrative agency to permit either a Person or entity other than an Indian
tribe to operate Gaming Devices; any form of Class III Gaming (including Video
Lottery Terminals) that is not authorized under this Compact, other than
gambling that is lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302; or poker,
other than poker that is lawful on May 1, 2002 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3302,
then, upon the effective date of such State law, final judgment, or final order:

(A) The Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to operate Class III
Gaming Devices without limitations on the number of Gaming Devices,
the number of Gaming Facilities, or the Maximum Gaming Devices Per
Gaming Facility, and without the need to amend this Compact;

(B) The Tribe shall be authorized under this Compact to operate table
games, without limitations on the number of Card Game Tables, on
Wagers, or on the types of games, and without the need to amend this
Compact, subject to the provisions of Section 3(b)(3); and

(C) In addition to Sections 3(h)(1)(A) and (B), the Tribe’s obligation under
Section 12 to make contributions to the State shall be immediately
reduced. Instead of the amounts payable under Section 12(b), the
Tribe shall make quarterly contributions to the State equal to seventy-
five hundredths of one percent (.75%) of its Class III Net Win for the
prior quarter.

(2) The provisions of this Section 3(h) shall not apply to casino nights operated by
non-profit or charitable organizations pursuant to and qualified under A.R.S. §
13-3302(B); to social gambling as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3301(7); to any paper
product lottery games, including ticket dispensing devices of the nature used
prior to May 1, 2002, by the Arizona lottery; or to low-wager, non-banked
recreational pools or similar activities operated by and on the premises of
retailers licensed under Title 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, as maauthorized by State law."

Good analysis, Darkness. It's what I was hinting at in my earlier post with regards to classifying all i-gambling including i-poker as Class III gaming.

Ok since it's been cleared up (thanks to you who did so) I'd still like to hear why the Indians need to be allowed to operate prior to anyone else being able to.

IMO this isn't so that they don't get shafted, but I would like to hear other views. For some reason no one wants to answer this question

For the record, I said before and I'll say it again. I don't care if the Indians do or do not pay taxes. My concern is how long they will delay this fighting over their demands.

I think both the players and the Indians would benifit far greater if they simply kept quiet let poker happen then bring their issues to the table.

I think you got it backwards.

There are some tribal leaders that simply want NO i-gaming, because they are concerned that they are ultimately not gonna get what they want. I understand their POV. But they are wrong. I-gaming is gonna happen sooner or later with close to 100% probability. Delaying their appearance at the negotiating table only weakens their position when they finally show up. They should have stepped up to the plate as soon as their non-tribal counterparts changed their tune.

Similarly, the players are lobbying for what they want NOW; they are not "keeping quiet and let it happen" either.

I really wouldn't get worked up over early entry into iPoker by Indian Casinos, seriously.

Two questions: If there is a superuser or FTP like situation on an indian regulated site would they have to agree with any anti-cheating measures set forth by US regulation or can they just say we want to allow bots and not require sites have customer funds covered?

Are we assuming that all states with tribal gaming will be opting in to the federal regulation?

Ask again once a bill is passed and the regulations are in place. Until then the answer is, "we don't know yet".

No. But Indian tribes won't be bound by the option status of the state. A tribe could opt in and run a site that simply excludes players from whatever states are opted out, regardless of the location of the tribe within an opted-out state.

We could end up with Washington DC., Carson City,Nevada plus our local state government and the tribes leadership all involved, regulating, taxing, listening to lobbyists, making decisions about situations without even basic knowledge, then hiding behind "It is best for the children" and we will still might have the same or even a better chance of more UB/SB?





OMG!

Plan B: We send a delegation to Elizabeth, beg for forgiveness and plea with her to take us back.

Maybe I don't understand what tax the tribes are against; is it the threatened 2% fed license tax? If it is, why would any tribes and states be for that? If states and tribes are against it, why would promising to charge them a 2% tax make a bill's passage easier? Doesn't taking 2% off the top mean less for players, tribes and states? How did racing escape this fed tax?

Assuming the McDermott HR 2230 bill was passed into law, the internet licensee would pay a 2% tax on all player deposits to the federal government and pay a 6% tax to the state or tribal government of the depositor.

For the tribes, the potential licensees are the tribal governments themselves. As potential operators, the tribes object to both of these taxes. Their justification is based on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; one of the implications of this federal law is that tribal B&M gaming operators (usually) do not pay any gaming taxes to either state or federal governments.

Tribal B&M casinos often pay a portion of their revenues to the state government(s) they are contained in so that they have the (sometimes exclusive) right to offer Class III games (banking games such as BJ, craps, roulette, ...) under a Tribal-State compact; in return the state sets up a regulatory agency. But these payments are NOT taxes. The terms and conditions, including the exact amounts paid, are negotiated between the tribe and the state.

When a tribal casino offers Class II games such as poker or bingo (basically games where the players compete against each other as opposed to the "house"), regulation is provided by a federal regulator called the NIGC. In this case, the state does nothing and gets nothing.

There seems to me one big thing that plays into our favor when it comes to tribal gaming and that is location. Tribal land is often out in the boonies, away from large population areas. At the onset of the Cabezon/IGRA era that didn't matter much because, except for AC and Nevada, tribal casinos were the only place legal casino gambling existed. But now the states themselves are starting to get into the game, and a state can usually get much better locations than the tribes can because they are not limited to tribal land. Ipoker can neutralize that advantage for the tribes.

Also, natives in Utah and Hawaii right now can't offer any gambling because these states don't have any gambling at all. Ipoker regulation could potentially open things up for them outside their states' boundaries.

This actually brings up another objection to currently proposed i-poker legislation. Tribes without brick and mortar casinos would not be able to even apply for an i-poker license. None of the tribal governments located within the state of Utah operate B&M's.

Right, but the bill could be changed to allow those tribes, or any tribes to gain a license and operate in the states that do sign on to the regime. It's the freakin internet, you don't physically have to be in the state to offer games.

My point is that technology is a friend to tribal gaming. Another example are all the casinos in Oklahoma. From what I understand, this very red state drug its feet on the class III gaming compacts and the tribes had to muddle along with their bingo and other class II games.

But then someone perfected the technology of class II slots so that they mimicked the "Vegas style" or class III ones. So the casinos were sitting there with a big draw and the state had no piece of the action. The state, then, had no choice but to move the compact process along.

Edit: And if our regime goes global, impoverished "Indians" in Utah could end up selling poker action to, ugh... actual Indians.

Actually my specific example is bad because Utah has absolutely no gambling. Thus, tribes there probably can't operate poker as a Class II game legally, even if an i-poker game law permitted tribes without casinos to apply for a license.

Not sure this was posted elsewhere but it was just announced that the Senate Indian Affairs Committe will host a hearing later this month to examine the impact of Internet gambling regulation on Indian tribes.

Oversight hearing on the future of internet gaming: what’s at stake for tribes?
Thursday, Nov. 17th at 2:15
No description is available.

http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearing...d258d9b32cb5d8

No witnesses have been announced. It is unlikely the PPA will be invited to testify.

John A. Pappas

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2859

Thanks, I thought the beef was against the 2%, but being against both is consistent with their legitimate complaint.

I am not sure why it would be a bad thing if the tribes paid no taxes from their site(s). Tribal profits don't go to a single individual, they go to the whole tribe,the whole community, so they are already, effectually, a "tax".

Consider allowing one or two tribal sites, managed by a company with expertise in this field, with input from the tribes and oversight by the BIA. All the tribes in the US would share in the profits proportional to their population.

The tribes that can offer no gaming now would definitely benefit, and the ones that do, would likely also. Most of the present tribal casinos service red states, and red states are the least likely to sign on to a regime, therefore fears of overlapping clientele would be reduced. For example, Winstar, one of the largest casinos, draws mainly from Ok and Texas. Neither state is likely to embrace Ipoker.

Bottom line, we should be looking at the tribal situation as an opportunity, not a problem. We know tribes don't have a moral objection to gaming, and getting them on board would be big for us.