It’s been nine years since California first considered regulating online poker, and on Wednesday the state moved towards the finish line for what one lawmaker called “one of essentially the most complicated issues ever facing the legislature.”

Assembly Bill 2863, the most recent attempt at online poker legislation from Assemblymember Adam Gray, moved out of the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee by a vote of 18-0 after a greater than two-hour long hearing in Sacramento.

The hearing was only the second one time ever that California lawmakers have voted on a web based poker proposal in those nine years. However, the similar committee approved a distinct version from Gray last April and no further progress was seen for the remainder of 2015.

This year actually has a possibility at being different.

When Gray and his co-author, Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, introduced the bill in February it contained crucial update: a $60 million annual payment to the state’s struggling horseracing industry in exchange for it not vying for online poker licenses. The politically powerful tracks came out in near unanimous support of AB 2863 on Wednesday.

The horseracing industry currently operates the one type of online wagering allowed in California, but tribal governments with gaming have long opposed the tracks from participating in online poker for the reason that tracks don’t currently offer live poker.

Gray said his bill has “unprecedented support” and that the opposition from the horseracing industry have been the no.1 issue to be resolved. That hurdle have been cleared, way to what Gray called a “creative revenue sharing model.” There has been some testimony that called into question the projection of California’s online poker market (estimated at nearly $400 million), but Gray said that we “haven’t seen an internet[ poker] market the scale of California within the United States.”

His bill doesn’t currently have a tax rate, an important detail left to be determined as it would help explain how $60 million could flow to the horseracing industry each year.

Gray said that an estimated a million Californians are still playing online poker on offshore sites. He reiterated that his top concern is consumer protection.

The last remaining hurdle is “suitability” for the net gaming companies that California’s brick-and-mortar gambling facilities would partner with.

AB 2863 currently has what Gray called “placeholder” language on that point, leaving the so-called “bad actor” issue to be resolved within the coming weeks and months. Gray said that he have been meeting every two weeks with tribal governments and the cardboard rooms to return to a consensus. He said that suitability language can be finalized before his bill comes up for a potential full Assembly vote.

“What assets can they bring about from that time?” Gray said in the case of companies that accumulated customers way to facilitating games for Americans after 2006, which was the year the infamous Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was glided by Congress.

It’s no secret that some tribes specifically oppose PokerStars, a platform with 70 percent of the global online poker market, from being involved with California’s online poker industry. Other tribes support PokerStars and feature formed tentative partnerships with the corporate. PokerStars was in hot water with the federal government, however it settled in 2012 without admitting to any wrongdoing.

In testimony on Wednesday, Mark Macarro, the Tribal Chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians in southern California, said that his group strongly supports bad actor provisions, and he made specific connection with insider trading charges that were filed in March against the previous CEO of Amaya Gaming, the parent company of PokerStars. The costs came the similar week that PokerStars returned to the U.S... with its launch in New Jersey.

Gray called the suitability issue “thorny and difficult,” but that he desires to “ensure the licensing process enables a degree playing field.”

Steve Stallings, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, added to that time by saying that there have to be a “fair launch date to take care of fair entry,” in order that all tribes get enough time to organize for his or her respective online poker businesses. Stallings told Card Player in an interview this year that the state could likely only support 6-10 unique operators.

Despite the opposition from some tribal governments, many expressed their support or neutrality for the bill in its current version, so long as the main points get flushed out soon.

A consensus couldn’t come soon enough for a representative from the Commerce Casino, a facility with greater than 200 poker tables. He said that he’s "amazed that we’ve been here nine years” talking about online poker, and when the controversy first started he had a whole head of hair. He said he hopes that by the point it’s legalized he still has some remaining.

Though Gray said that we’re “closer than ever” to regulated online poker in California, there still isn’t a guarantee it ever happens. In step with Stallings, California online poker efforts might be dead for good if legislation isn’t passed throughout the next two years.

Read More... [Source: CardPlayer Poker News]