GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 18 - October 2011

to a consortium of card clubs. But politi- cians are looking at legalizing online poker not to protect local operators, but to raise money, because the state is desperate for revenue. So, at least one license has to go to an outside company with more money than any California operator, such as Cae- sars or Bwin/Party. The only question is whether there will be a limited num- ber of at least three licenses, or unlim- ited to any operator with enough money. Potential federal constitutional questions - This is probably a reference to the position by the Department of Jus- tice under Pres. George W. Bush that even intrastate Internet poker violates the Wire Act. Since then, courts have ruled that the Wire Act does not apply to poker. But, if in- trastate poker violates federal law, there is nothing more to discuss. So, why the delay? Maybe the senators re- ally do have questions like these, which could be answered quickly by any com- petent gaming lawyer. Or maybe they are still trying to negotiate the political fight among various tribal factions, card clubs, tracks and others over how many licenses will be issued, and to whom. 5. But, the Sacramento Bee may have been the first to publish what a lot of us have been thinking. An editorial on August 19, 2011, three days before the Dear Stakeholder letter, began: “Whether or not they are in support or opposition, lawmakers are unlikely to take decisive action until the last pos- sible moment on two bills to legalize Internet poker and other forms of gam- bling in California.” Why? These two bills are the ultimate juice bills of the session. Indian tribes and other groups on various sides of this issue are spending huge sums on lobbying, cam- paign contributions and consulting. The more this issue drags out – and the more that lawmakers can gin up drama and stress over it – the more money will flow through the Capitol. The Bee and other newspapers have been reporting on the millions of dollars being spent on these bills. The lobbying has be- come so lucrative that it has even attract- ed such political heavyweights as former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, hired by the Morongo tribe as a consultant. A careful reading of the letter makes it clear that the politicians in Sacramento want additional input: Toward that end we strongly encourage you, as a Stakeholder, to be actively engaged during the interim in helping craft this objective proposal. And Stakeholders should be prepared to write additional checks in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Next year is the presidential election, and one-third of the California Senate and 100 percent of the State Assembly seats will be decided. So the few million dollars that are being spent on Internet poker will be unnoticed in the coming flood of political solicitations and donations. If Internet gambling is not made legal in California next year, the bills have to be introduced, again, in 2013. The California Legislature meets in two-year sessions. Bills like this, even without the incentive of big-money donations to drag things out, are only voted on in even years. © Copyright 2011, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is a registered trademark of Professor I. Nelson Rose, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com . Gambling and the Law: California’s Unnecessary Delay