Just popping in to pass on some goods news from the California scene. In the void the federal government created with Black Friday, here comes the land of dreams to fill some of the hole. At least one state Senator is pushing the California online poker bill up the legislative agenda. Still no guarantees that it passes soon, if at all. But if you live in Cali, may make sense not to move to Canada just yet.
Seems like there are a lot of great articles being written these days. Check out this one from the LA Times about confusion in poker law generally and the hypocrisy of the federal government in its action. (The author slips in a discussion of how the federal quagmire may be an opening for California to start an intrastate system.) Hopefully, you enjoy this article too.
Nice to see some PR from a mainstream (well, at least not gambling) site. Check out this piece from aol on the status of intrastate poker legislation. Note the underlying current of disdain (perhaps I’m reading something into it that’s not there, but it’s fun to imagine) the article takes when discussing that the Federal government is dragging its heels on reform measure.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have made NJ the first state to legalize intrastate online poker. He cited “legal and constitutional concerns” and supposedly was concerned with underage gambling and the possibility for back-room illegal gambling halls fronted by a handful of Internet-connected computers to spring up across the state. Gov. Christie is not known as one to shy away from hard choices or to play partisan politics, but I have to wonder whether talk of him having higher political aspirations coupled with his Republican affiliation influenced his decision. Another factor could have been the negative effect online poker could have on Atlantic City, given that Gov. Christie’s recently took control of the city and promised to reverse its economic swoon. Can’t imagine he’d want to do anything to hurt his chances for success with another election to win (assuming he does not run for President that is).
Regardless, the cause is not over. The NJ legislature could override the veto or the bill could be re-worked to address Christie’s concerns and re-submitted for consideration (though this takes time). Or maybe California passes legislation and NJ realized the errors of its ways and reverses course. Don’t place your bests on this though just yet.
Hot on the heels of the progress in New Jersey toward legalizing intrastate online poker, Nevada has hired a consulting firm to evaluate the considerations of Nevada passing its own legislation. I wonder it Nevada is concerned more about NJ or talk that its neighbor, California, which also already has legal live poker, too is considering legalizing the virtual kind. As I’ve said before here though kids, be careful what you wish for: what seems good today may seem like a horrid idea 20 years from now. Just imagine a world with 50 separate online poker bases but no cross-state competition. Does not sound like good games or player base growth to me. Don’t want to me a player hater, but just saying…
Not too long ago California had been considering intrastate online poker. That possibility deteriorated as a result of in-state fighting among tribes and other constituents. Basically, over money. But hot on the heels of New Jersey becoming (well, just about) the first state to permit intrastate online poker, California is witnessing a renewed effort to pass legislation of its own. The next big step is to find a bill sponsor as the most recent sponsor is in legal trouble (politicians!). It’s interesting that two of the states with the largest brick-and-mortar poker strongholds are the ones leading the online charge. Synergy, as my college professor (of The Office) may say. Whatever. As long as there’s legal poker we’re there.
Here is a summary of federal and state gambling legislation prepared by two partners at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. For all you non-lawyers out there, Skadden is one of the preeminent law firms in the world, perhaps the best. Akin to what Ivey is to poker. Sadly, Skadden’s conclusion is that progress will be “incremental” and likely will occur on a state level before a nationwide resolution is reached.
The Commerce Casino in California, the largest poker room in the U.S., and a mecca for west coast poker enthusiasts, recently stated its opposition to H.R. 2267, Rep. Barney Frank’s legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker. I have two main reactions to this stance. First, a business has every right to, in fact is designed to, do what is in its best economic interest. Second, opposing the legislation is short-sighted.
I’m assuming that the Commerce Casino stance is premised on a belief that more people playing online will mean fewer people in its establishment. Which translates to less rake and concessions. In other words, less revenue. If this was true, the Commerce’s position would be correct. But I do not believe it to be true. Legalizing online poker will expand the pie. Its tide will rise all boats. Or whatever metaphor you prefer. Legalization likely will result in more people interested in and playing poker than are now. Initially, most of these new players will be online — that is the intention of the law after all. But as we all know, even the staunchest of online poker advocates dabble in live poker from time to time. So, if more people are playing poker online, it stands to reason that eventually (and probably soon) there should be an increase in live players as well. Being the largest poker room in the country, and in California to boot, the Commerce should receive a significant portion of the increased action. To vote against legalizing online poker is myopic.
It is myopic for another reason. Commerce regulars are revolting against the casino’s stance and threatening to boycott the poker room. Apparently, live poker players enjoy online poker as well (who knew!). Or at least commiserate with their online compatriots. The Commerce’s stance is costing it business even before online poker is legalized.
Poker is one community. Regardless of whether you prefer online or live. It’s similar to how Democrats and Republicans are all Americans. Our similarities are greater than our differences. Poker has been under attack for some time. All poker players should stand united. Doing so will help all. (I mean, can you just imagine the influx of fresh meat for the Commerce Casino sharks? It might be like 2003-05 –the Golden Age — all over again.)
**FYI — I will be on vacation next week. I’ll try to post while away, but do not yet know if I will have internet access. If I don’t, I will post soon after my return as I know you will be chomping at the bit. Have a great Labor Day!
Updating a story we reported on here last week, The California Indian tribes have succeeded in stalling proposed legislation that would have created an intrastate online poker site. After much lobbying, the bill’s sponsor, Roderick Wright, withdrew the legislation claiming further discussion is needed. The horizon keeps getting farther away…
As reported previously, California is considering whether to establish an intrastate online poker site. The California Indian tribes are divided in their stance on the legislation making the bill’s passage hotly debated. The hearing on the matter is set for June 29 at 3:30 p.m. PST. Could be interesting theater if you’re in the neighborhood.
