AGA poker bill due in autumn
Fahrenkopf dismisses bipartisan Barton bill ahead of own poker-only legislation in autumn - Nevada and New Jersey alone would license and regulate future market.
The American Gaming Association (AGA) will not support Congressman Joe Barton’s internet poker bill and will instead push new legislation in the autumn which would favour Nevada and New Jersey as licensing and regulatory authorities in a future US egaming market.
The AGA-backed poker-only bill would also differ from the Barton draft on how resulting tax revenues would be split between federal and state level. “Taxes would be divided between the state where the bettor is, with the state where the regulator is. The federal government would only receive the income tax on winnings,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief of the powerful US land-based casino representative organisation.
In a keynote address at the Gaming Executive Summit in Madrid today he said: “Ten days ago Joe Barton of Texas introduced a bill that was modelled on the draft that was worked on by Senator Reid and Senator Kyl in the lame duck session. We are not supporting it. We are not opposing it, but we are not supporting it.”
Fahrenkopf said the AGA was “hopeful that after the summer break, a bill will be introduced” which would provide the following: “Number one, it would give oversight to the Congress department of the United States but they would delegate the licensing and regulatory authority to those states that have the longest history in gaming regulation, that have the law enforcement on staff and the financial wherewithal to do tough regulation. Probably, that only means Nevada and New Jersey.”
Second, added Fahrenkopf, in contrast to earlier bills such as that introduced last year by Barney Frank “ re-introduced in March this year by Congressman John Campbell “ states would have to opt in to any regulatory regime emerging from the AGA-backed poker-only bill. “States would not automatically be included as states where you can gamble online with online poker. State legislators and governors would have to take affirmative action to say, we want our people to game.”
Third, said Fahrenkopf, “[T]here would be delineation between those companies that got out of the market with UIGEA’s passage, and those that did not. I don’t know exactly what that would be, but assume there would be a ‘penalty box'”. Fahrenkopf said his understanding was that if a company had stayed in the US post-UIGEA, they would be barred from any federal licensing process for a minimum of two years.
The AGA’s president and CEO said that a disagreement among US land-based casino groups over this issue is what caused the Reid/Kyl lame duck bill to fail. “Because of some deals that were made at the last minute by Full Tilt and PokerStars, primarily with Station Casinos and Wynn, the industry was split, and [this bill] didn’t go anywhere.
“Sheldon Adelson [Las Vegas Sands chairman and CEO] was personally offended by the fact there would not be a ‘penalty box’ by some. He called leaders in both houses, as did Steve Wynn at the time. That was before Steve had his epiphany with regard to internet gaming. A very substantial epiphany that he had.”
Fahrenkopf was also dismissive of attempts by individual states or jurisdictions to establish their own gambling regimes as currently provided for under UIGEA, questioning the ability of Iowa and the District of Columbia to build sufficient poker liquidity.
He said of the District’s egaming legislation passed in April, now under review: “It’s even harder to believe the Congress of the United States would let that [online gaming] happen. The city council is now upset with the way that it was done. I don’t anticipate that is really going to go anywhere.
“But I’m very happy to see it, as it helps me make the argument to Congress that Washington ought to do this at a federal level rather than have a mish-mash of different state laws.”