Setting things straight in California
Despite the recent news placed by the Poker Voters of America that Assemblyman Jerry Hill appears as a sponsor of one of three online poker legalizing proposals currently circulating in the legislature, the allegations have been denied on Jan. 6.
Apparently, the whole confusion was caused by a story in a British gaming publication which said Hill, a member of the powerful Assembly Governmental Organisation Committee, responsible in each house for reviewing gaming bills, was going to submit a bill. PVA Spokesman Patrick Dorinson assessed the affair as a simple misunderstanding in the PVA's exchanges with a reporter from the publication.
In addition, there is a number of events which may have led to the association of Hill's name with the proposed bill – the fact that a few weeks ago he met with pro-legalized poker political consultant Lloyd Levine (who was unsuccessful in launching a legalization bill back in 2007) on which occasion Hill was presented with a 32 page draft proposing the legalization of online poker. Afterwards, Hill submitted the draft to the House Legislative Counsel for review and rewrite into a format closer to what the Legislature could consider.
However, Hill claims that this action was not done on behalf of the PVA, but that his intention was merely to make sure the language intentions are in order. He also underlined that his staff did the submission for him, not the PVA: “They didn't have enough information or research to present anything to me, so they went to Leg Counsel to get clear language. We didn't submit it for them. We submitted it for me. In order to evaluate an idea, you have to have language to look at.”
On the other side, Levine said that he has been consulting with PVA, but that the eGaming story was “completely inaccurate” adding: “It's a British publication, and they're not familiar with the Sacramento political process.”
According to Hill, the PVA introduced a proposal to designate multiple “hub operators,” who would be authorized to offer Internet poker to California citizens, and each of which would have to be either “a holder of a current state gambling license to own or operate a land-based gambling entity” or “a federally recognized Indian tribe operating a gambling establishment pursuant to a tribal-state gaming compact.”
In terms of the other two proposals that would legalise Internet poker in California, SB 40 by Sen. Lou Correa and SB 45 by Sen. Rod Wright, Dorinson expressed hope that Levine's proposal may bring the proponents of competing bills to the negotiating table:
“We've now been at this for a couple of years now. It's long past time for all the parties to come together,” he explained.
It was assessed by the Capitol Weekly that "the two bills vary significantly. Correa's bill is sponsored by COPA. It is limited to poker, and while it does not offer an exclusive license to any particular group, it does appear to favor the role of tribes. It also suggests that revenue from online poker would be exempt from state income taxes.
"The state Franchise Tax Board currently excludes casino “per capita” payments to tribal members if the person is a member of the tribe operating the casino and living on the same reservation where the casino is located."
In regards to taxation, Senator Wright's opposing SB 45 does not mention whether tribes would be taxed or not, but it underlines the key is that “...the state is not deprived of income tax revenues to which it would otherwise be entitled."
Capitol Weekly also learned from Levine that, even though the bill he submitted to Hill is essentially similar to the one advocated by Senator Wright, it still has two crucial differences: Wright's bill allows for the possibility of games besides poker, while the Poker Voters of America language is poker-only. It also only allows hub operators with prior experience with gaming - “A track, a tribe or a card room,” as he put it.
Your feedback
Please enter your comment.
Your comment is added.
