Poker Voters of America: why UIGEA should be fought state-by-state
For Jim Tabilio, president of the Poker Voters of America, the state-by-state approach to legislating online poker in the US is more likely to be successful than the federal project of Congressman Barney Frank.
OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS, Poker Voters of America (PVA) has made significant progress in the US in advancing the cause of legalising internet poker on an intrastate basis (as in all players located in the same state).
This path is specifically permitted by an exemption in the Federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in 2006 that explicitly declares online intrastate wagers do NOT constitute “unlawful internet gambling” if expressly permitted by the laws of a state.
Poker Voters’ intrastate legalisation push is distinct from the ongoing efforts to repeal, or significantly alter, UIGEA in Washington, DC. It is also more likely to be successful in the short run due to a number of political and economic factors that favour a state-by-state approach.
Poker Voters’ lobbying focuses on creating individual US state systems and regulations that provide consumer protections for online players, while generating significant revenue for cash-hungry state governments.
The political and legal landscapes in several large states (especially those with significant land-based experience) are more hospitable to new platforms for gambling than the Federal political structure, which can be dominated by conservative anti-gaming forces sufficient to block or delay Congressional liberalisation of national online gaming policy.
Among large-population states (the natural initial targets for intrastate systems, since only players from within each state can access a legalised state network under UIGEA, limiting potential liquidity in smaller state systems), California and Florida have taken the lead in considering legalisation.
The California Online Poker Consumer Protection and Law Enforcement Compliance Act will be voted upon by the California legislature this year. It is considered likely to pass, in large part because it allows the state to reap significant revenue from the hundreds of thousands of Californians who currently play at unregulated “ and untaxed “ poker sites.
Earlier this year, Florida’s legislature passed a bill that called for a six-month study into regulating intrastate online poker in that state, with introduction (and passage) of an implementation bill expected in early 2010.
The California and Florida efforts have been created and guided by Poker Voters of America and we expect to sponsor similar legislation in a number of additional state legislatures by early 2010.
While Poker Voters supports national legislation, we believe that federal legalisation of internet poker is unlikely to pass in the near term.
Even if it were to pass in its current form, the language of Congressman Barney Frank’s bill would allow states to opt out of the federal system. Large population states could opt out and alternatively establish their own intrastate systems that would likely prove more lucrative to state governments than splitting revenue with the Federal government under Congressman Frank’s proposed national scheme.
While obstacles to legal intrastate online poker remain, we believe the consumer protection benefits and revenue potential generated by legal and regulated intrastate online poker will be a strong attraction for state governments in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and even Texas.
These states all have large numbers of residents currently playing online poker for money at unregulated and untaxed poker sites. They also all have enormous ongoing budget problems that make it attractive to capture revenue on an already existing and untaxed industry.
This article first appeared in the July edition of eGaming Review.