2015 is destined to be the year that California finally passes an online poker…or is it? So far, the major roadblocks continue to be the ‘bad actor’ clause and excluding racetracks. So California Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer is looking to shore up both of these problems with his recently proposed bill, AB 167. That said, let’s discuss the finer points of AB 167 and whether it can pass.
Main Points of Jones-Sawyer’s Bill
As alluded to in the introduction, a huge point of AB 167 is that there’s no clear bad-actor language present. This clause has previously been used to shut poker sites out of California that violated the UIGEA by continuing to operate in the US after Dec. 31, 2006. And removing this barrier has definitely pleased the coalition headed by PokerStars, as they released the following statement:
“We applaud Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer for his thoughtful approach to iPoker legislation in California which takes into account many years of input from stakeholders on all sides, including the California Department of Justice. In place of previous attempts to use the legislative process to provide competitive advantages to a few operators, Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer’s bill brings parties with diverse interests together to move legislation forward.”
Another big key that could hasten the passage of AB 167 is allowing the state’s racetracks to participate in online poker. The horse racing industry has been a staunch opponent of previous iPoker efforts in the Golden State since they were excluded. Some tribes have argued that only the state’s card rooms and tribal gaming should participate in online poker to stay consistent with “California’s longstanding public policy of limited gaming.”
Under this bill, anybody caught playing on non-regulated poker sites would be subject to a felony and possible imprisonment. This would make California the only other state besides Washington to take such a harsh stance on the matter.
Finally, there’s nothing in AB 167 that opposes interstate poker, which certainly bodes well for US iPoker. Previous arguments have been made against interstate poker under the belief that California is big enough to sustain a healthy player pool on their own.
Can this Bill pass?
While it’s certainly refreshing to see legislation that doesn’t include a clear bad-actor clause, the problem now becomes some of the tribes. Specifically, Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro isn’t happy with the inclusion of racetracks and PokerStars into the market. Here’s a statement from Maccaro regarding the latter:
“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.”
Based on what Maccaro says, here we again have an inability of all sides to come together. So it’s hard to see Jones-Sawyer’s legislation being the one that gets voted through. But then again, he did take a leap by trying to eliminate the two previous biggest barriers, which could finally be what gets iPoker passed in California.