Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2012, 06:34 AM   #126
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,389
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNutza View Post
Will this bill potentially allow Ca to share player pools with foreign countries or just other states?
Just other states:

Quote:
19990.71. The Legislature may, by a statute adopted by a
majority vote of both houses, do either of the following:
(a) Opt out of, or opt into, any federal framework for Internet
gambling.
(b) If the United States Department of Justice notifies the
department in writing that it is permissible under federal law, enter
into any agreement with other states to provide Internet gambling.
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).

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 03-01-2012 at 07:39 AM.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:50 AM   #127
WaterFall21
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,245
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

my crystal ball has me in cali soon
WaterFall21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 02:16 PM   #128
daveh07
Pooh-Bah
 
daveh07's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: broken monitor land
Posts: 3,924
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

any update on this?
daveh07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:43 AM   #129
Micro McD
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakewalk View Post
so judging by this: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...27_status.html

they have read the bill. now these window licking politicians will talk about it ?

edit: what is the process from here on out?
Can't find any updates yet but Cakewalk supplied us this sweet link to a CA gov site that seems updated daily.
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 04:59 AM   #130
WadsUp
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 29
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Will Ceasar's/Harrahs try to buy out a current casino in CA so they can open a site?
WadsUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 05:57 AM   #131
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,389
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by WadsUp View Post
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 11:02 AM   #132
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Net poker's prospects probably lie beyond '12

Quote:
Hope, however, comes from California, where two state senators introduced an online gambling bill last month. A paragraph in the 46-page bill allows the state to "outsource" the regulatory process to another state with "proven" expertise, i.e., Nevada.

In a perfect world, Nevada and California would form an Internet poker gaming compact where Nevada oversees the activity and the states share revenues. Strip casino operators and Indian casinos could launch websites and compete equally for California and Nevada customers.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 11:40 AM   #133
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by WadsUp View Post
Will Ceasar's/Harrahs try to buy out a current casino in CA so they can open a site?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
They already operate Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians in San Diego County.
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.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 10:22 PM   #134
Micro McD
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

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
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 09:10 PM   #135
tbremer
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 509
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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.
tbremer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 07:05 AM   #136
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:06 AM   #137
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,511
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
... Sheila Morago, executive director of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association. "Tribes are still (hurting) from the loss of revenue from the recession..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sba9630 View Post

Casino City Releases 2012 Indian Gaming Industry Report: Indian Gaming Shows Signs of Recovery [globenewswire.com]

Indian casinos still growing despite economy [SouthCoastTODAY.com]

Indian gaming revenues dip 3 percent in California [PressDemocrat.com]

  • In all, the nation's 448 Indian gambling facilities operated by 239 tribes generated $26.7 billion in gambling revenue, according to the report.

  • Indian gaming outperformed the commercial casinos segment and the card room segment, which declined 0.1% and 2%, respectively, in 2010.

  • Indian gaming generated approximately 44% of all U.S. casino gaming revenue in 2010, only slightly less than the 45% share contributed by the commercial casinos segment.

  • The (California Indian) casinos raked in $6.8 billion, more than a quarter of all revenue from Indian gaming in the United States.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 03:09 PM   #138
WaterFall21
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,245
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

this sounds like a huge hurdle
WaterFall21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:25 PM   #139
Axilla
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 189
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

the best thing casinos can do is offer a STATE WIDE SHARED PLAYER POOL.. and win players over with rakeback/vip point type benefits..
Axilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:12 PM   #140
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterFall21 View Post
this sounds like a huge hurdle
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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:23 PM   #141
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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?
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 09:46 PM   #142
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 10:17 PM   #143
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 11:22 PM   #144
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 12:59 AM   #145
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 02:06 AM   #146
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,511
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

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.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 02:32 AM   #147
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
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.
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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 07:43 AM   #148
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 08:19 AM   #149
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
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.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 04:55 AM   #150
keyman
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 233
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866 View Post
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokeraddict View Post
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only gives tribes the same gambling rights that exist outside of tribal soil. States can, and have given tribes more, but they are under no obligation. Tribes cannot just open sports book if no sports betting exists in the state without state authorization. The same rule applies here. This is why there are no tribal casinos in Utah, there is no other gambling.

The tribes in California have no right to claim exclusive online poker rights unless their gaming pact with California specifically addresses online gambling in this way which I seriously doubt. Since card clubs are legal outside of reservations, I cannot see how they can claim exclusive rights.

They may have a case with horse tracks, but I doubt that either. As long as state land does not get gambling advantages over tribal land, no federal law has been broken. Maybe the gaming pact says something different, if so, I would love to see what silliness California agreed years ago as it pertains to online gambling they probably never thought would be legal anyway. I doubt there was ever any such agreement.

I did an extensive research project on this not too long ago. As far as I know, no state has given tribes the rights to do any type of internet gambling beyond horse racing.
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.
keyman is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online