Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
Compacts do not mention poker because tribes do not need to form compacts to offer Class II gaming on tribal land. 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.