After the introduction of a new bill regarding the regulation and taxation of online poker in California from a previously unaffiliated Assemblyman, a new online poker bill has come to the table from one of the industry’s longtime supporters.
On Friday, California State Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer introduced the latest version of his efforts to regulate online poker in the Golden State. The Jones-Sawyer bill, known as AB 167 and entitled “The Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015,” is very similar to what Jones-Sawyer put forth in the California General Assembly last year. That bill, which was roundly decried for ‘bad actor’ (prevention of potential licensees) language that was present in the bill (AB2291 from 2014), was unable to gain any traction as the legislative session came to a close. With his new bill, Jones-Sawyer seems to be listening to the detractors.
AB 167 lacks the ‘bad actor’ clause, instead focusing on individuals rather than corporate entities. In putting forth a clause that would regulate who could be licensed, AB 167 instead says that “a person who has contemptuously defied a legislative investigative body, or other official investigative body of a state or of the United States or a foreign jurisdiction” would be banned from seeking a license for online gaming in the state. This would be significant for the 800-pound gorilla in the potential California online poker scene.
Under the old language of Jones-Sawyer’s bill, the recognized #1 online poker site in the industry, PokerStars, would not have been able to apply for a license due to several of its key management personnel being under the watch of the U. S. Department of Justice or under indictment. It was thought, after the sale of PokerStars to the Montreal-based Amaya Gaming, that those issues would have been cleared, but previous California legislation still prohibited PokerStars from being able to be licensed in the state. The new language in Jones-Sawyer’s AB 167, in focusing more on the personnel of a potential licensee rather than the company overall, seems to open the door for PokerStars and Amaya Gaming to enter a potential California market.
The new bill from Jones-Sawyer has drawn the ire of those who support the ‘bad actor’ clause being in any proposed regulations for California online poker. A coalition of Indian tribes, led by the chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Mark Macarro, immediately came out in opposition of the Jones-Sawyer proposal, stating, “We are disappointed that the bill disregards important principles from a broad coalition of respected tribes and card rooms that help prevent corporations and entities that previously violated federal law from profiting from tainted software, brands and databases derived from illegal activity.”
The ‘bad actor’ situation throws yet another wrench into the mechanisms that could bring online poker to California. Over the past eight years, the constant infighting between the California card rooms, the Indian tribes and the horse racing tracks that operate poker rooms has been the major roadblock to passage of any online poker regulation. Now that those factions have seemingly come together, the ‘bad actor’ language that has been floated in several pieces of legislation has once again driven them apart.
Jones-Sawyer’s bill is the second to hit the rolls of legislation in the California General Assembly. Late last year, Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who had previously not taken any positions regarding online poker in the state, introduced AB 9 (oddly enough with the same title as the Jones-Sawyer bill) that helped to jump-start the drive to passing regulation of the industry. Gatto’s bill, however, contained the ‘bad actor’ language (opposed by the PokerStars-led coalition) as well as a clause that would require any signups, deposits or withdrawals to be done in a physical casino or card room.
Gatto has softened a bit on the stance of physical appearance to perform activities related to online poker, indicating that he would amend his bill to remove that regulation. Gatto has also indicated he is interested in working alongside Jones-Sawyer, perhaps merging their bills into a singular piece of legislation that would make everyone happy. That seems to be the likely action moving forward, although it will be interesting to see whose idea regarding the ‘bad actor’ clause makes the final legislation.
