Quote:
Originally Posted by curtinsea
Seriously? They bought the clout they needed when they announced their partnership with Morongo, Commerce, et al, as was demonstrated when they torpedoed the effort in 2014
Yes, PS doesn't have this clout on their own. As you say, tribes formed a partnership with PS, and it's those tribes pushing this bill. PS is lobbying heavily, but the legislature is not held at gunpoint. Tribes wishing to work with PS have a right to push that angle too, just as opposing tribes have a right to push theirs.
Quote:
it's true they have no business interests in CA at this time, all the more reason the legislature shouldn't bend over backwards to make room for them.
And they're not. Suitability should be determined by regulators, not by some ex post facto law designed to block one company never even charged with violating CA law.
The natural state of law is not for legislatures to block anyone who dares to inconvenience the process by seeking to do business in the state, or to protect smaller players from competitors.
Quote:
Really, why should they? They stand zero chance to make a buck doing it, why should they let Pokerstars nudge in on their territory they have fought hard to gain?
Why it is their territory? The tribal compact doesn't give the online space to tribes, hence this bill. The idea that big companies should be kept out seems odd. It would be like banning GM and Ford to allow CA automakers a chance to grow and thrive.
I'm sure these tribes could find a way to partner with PS, have a skin on the PS network, or to partner with one another for economy of scale. They can try to get the legislature to protect them from PS, but it's hard to see how that's PS's fault.
Quote:
But those same tribes you call obstructionists were well on board two years ago, prior to Pokerstars announcing their partnerships.
There you go.
Quote:
that is merely a point of view, the same can be true of the Pokerstars coalition. Watch when the bright line is pushed back to 2006, they, and the PPA, will become those opposed. But I doubt the majority of tribes not affiliated with Pokerstars but on board with Grey's bill will get on board with the new bill too.
Again, the idea that government should protect anyone from competition seems odd. I get that this minority of tribes will continue to fight the majority wishing to pass this bill as it is, but I think you make an error blaming PokerStars for merely seeking to do business in the state. The legislature could simply make a decision one way or another. Expecting PS to bow out gracefully from all states with any tribal gaming doesn't seem realistic. Should Caesars and other big gaming companies bow out too, simply based on their size and ability to compete?
Quote:
I'm guessing we'll see that bad actor language revert back to the 2006 brightline. Support the bill then, despite bad actor clause, so we can be playing already
Again, you seem to fault PS for merely seeking to do business in the state. I think that's misapplied. Again, the legislature could have passed whatever law they wished. Or, tribes could have united around one approach. There are many variables here that go well beyond PS not realizing that, according to this line of argument (and I write that will all due respect), they ought not even try to do business in CA and other states.