Wright and Steinberg introduce new Cali bill
New egaming legislation is poker-only for two years, after which lawmakers may be permitted to add more games.
California Senators Rod Wright and Darrell Steinberg have jointly introduced new intrastate egaming legislation for the Golden State.
Under the terms of Senate Bill 1463, “eligible entities” would be entitled to apply for 10-year licences to offer online gambling to Californian residents aged 21 or over, while any unlicensed operator offering online gambling to residents of the state would see their activities punishable as a misdemeanour.
The bill only applies to poker for the first two years following its proposed implementation, although after the two-year period comes to an end “The department may phase in other games allowed under the California Constitution and the Penal Code.”
It makes clear that no operator which has taken US bets since 31 December 2006 would be eligible for a licence, although it does not rule out those operators which pulled out of the US market following the passage of UIGEA, regardless of whether they have reached a settlement with American authorities.
Senate President Steinberg had remarked late last year that no egaming bill would pass until 2012 at the earliest due to “significant, unresolved issues”.
In its current format it would see licensees pay a non-refundable US$30m licence fee, which would in turn be credited against GGR-related monthly fees for operating in California, while an application fee of between $1m and $5m would also have to be paid. Licences issued under SB1463 would come in to force “no later than 1 January 2014.”
It would also provide for a review of the activities of all licensees after a three-year period, after which “The state reserves the right to make reasonable modifications to the terms and conditions of the license.”
Unlike Lou Correa’s rival bill SB40, which limits the number of licensees to five, there is no restriction on the number of licensed entities, however there would be a requirement under SB1463 for all licensees to be “organized” in California. This qualification pertains not only to the licensee itself, but also to its facilities, its bank accounts related to its intrastate online gambling operations, and its registered players’ bank accounts.”
Senator Wright’s Senate Bill 1485 had met with opposition from tribes and card clubs in the state when introduced in 2010, causing it to stall at the committee stage, and his follow-up bill, SB45, failed to resolve a number of these issues.
The California Tribal Business Alliance (CTBA), a lobby group representing Native American tribes in the state to online which has previously voiced its objections gambling proposals in California, remains sceptical of Wright and Steinberg’s bill.
While the language of the bill explains that “Nothing in this chapter prohibits any federally recognized Indian tribe within California with a tribal-state gaming compact with the state pursuant to IGRA from participating in intrastate Internet gambling pursuant to these provisions subject to the jurisdiction of the state,” it also details that “Internet gambling will take place throughout California on both tribal and nontribal lands.”
Leslie Lohse, who was recently named chairwoman of the group, said in a statement: “[E]arly analysis of this legislation leads us to conclude that it violates many of the principles we believe are required for Internet Poker to be successful in California.
“[I]t precludes entities that are legally authorized to offer poker in the State of California at brick and mortar locations from offering poker on the Internet [and] At the same time, it allows other entities who not legally authorized to offer poker, to offer it online. This is another broken promise and a harsh slap in the face to California Indian Tribes,” added Lohse.