ONLINE POKER Legislation faces tough odds before deadline
Fractures between the gaming tribes looks to once again doom a measure to legalize online gambling in California
/CONTRIBUTED IMAGE
State Sen. Rod Wright, chairman of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee hearing, at the June 12 committee hearing where he pulled his online poker bill.
BY JIM MILLER
SACRAMENTO BUREAU
Published: 13 August 2012 06:45 PM
A Text Size
Related
SACRAMENTO — Divisions among tribes with successful casinos have stacked the odds against legislation to legalize and license online poker in California, with less than three weeks left in the two-year session.
Some tribes support the proposal co-authored by the Senate’s top Democrat. Others support the concept but want changes to the legislation. And some tribes oppose the idea, saying it risks eating into the business of bricks-and-mortar casinos legalized by voters in 1998 and 2000.
Other complicated end-of-session measures, meanwhile, could consume lawmakers’ attention and time as the clock winds down. Those include possible bills dealing with public-employee pensions, workers compensation, and other issues that could emerge in the closing weeks.
“It doesn’t look good,” state Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, the author of the online poker bill, said of its chances Monday.
Federal law prohibits online gambling but allows states to authorize the games inside their borders. Millions of Californians, though, play unregulated online poker games through illegal sites based offshore.
In the almost three years since some tribes and card clubs began lobbying lawmakers to legalize online poker, there has been no legislative vote on an online gambling bill. There have been hundreds of hours of public hearings and private negotiations.
The measure crafted by Wright and the office of Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would authorize tribes and other entities to apply for five-year licenses to operate intrastate online poker web sites.
Each licensee would have to pay a one-time licensing fee of $30 million, an amount on top of any marketing and other start-up costs. Proponents say they hope the bill would earn the state at least $200 million in licensing fees.
Supporters of the Wright bill include the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, which operates a casino near Valley Center, and the United Auburn Indian Community, which runs a Sacramento-area casino that is among the most successful in the country.
Both tribes have made arrangements to offer online poker if it becomes legal. United Auburn recently entered into a partnership with a digital entertainment company called bwin.party. Rincon partners with Harrah’s, which already has a free online poker site.
Other tribes, though, oppose the Wright measure, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians near Temecula and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in the Coachella Valley.
Wright pulled his bill at its first committee hearing in June and no future hearings are planned.
“I’m not going to break a pick on this issue,” Steinberg told reporters last week. “But I’m willing to see it through if there is a little more consensus.”
Within days of Steinberg’s comments, some tribes that support the Wright proposal met with a group of tribes and card rooms that oppose the current version of the bill but want to legalize online poker.
That group, the California Online Poker Association, includes the Morongo Band of Mission Indians near Banning and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians near San Bernardino.
Last Wednesday, the online poker association presented 73 pages of proposed amendments to Wright’s bill. The suggested changes would exclude horse tracks and advanced-deposit wagering providers from offering the games. They also would increase the duration of an operator’s license from five years to 10 years, among other changes.
“With millions of Californians playing poker online, consumer protections are desperately needed. To put this off another year is not in anyone’s best interest,” association spokesman Ryan Hightower said in a statement.
A day later, the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, which represents many of the state’s tribes with casinos, changed its position on the bill from “oppose unless amended” to “support if amended.”
Other gaming tribes, though, have reiterated their opposition to the measure, even if Wright and non-tribal interests with a stake in the online poker bill agree to the suggested amendments in the coming days.
“This issue is too important to rush through at the close of the legislative session,” read a letter from Jeff L. Grubbe, the chairman of the Agua Caliente tribe. He called the amendments “a starting point” for negotiations for a new bill.
Comments
PE.com is now using Facebook Comments. Comments are subject to Facebook’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service on data use. If you don’t want your comment to appear on Facebook, uncheck the ‘Post to Facebook’ box. To find out more, read the FAQ.
