BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ķ



                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:   April 27, 2015


                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION


                                  Adam Gray, Chair


          AB 431  
          (Gray) - As Introduced February 19, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Gambling:  Internet poker


          SUMMARY:   Would authorize the operation of an Internet poker  
          Web site within the borders of the state.  The bill would  
          require the California Gambling Control Commission (CGCC), in  
          consultation with the California Department of Justice's Bureau  
          of Gambling Control (Bureau), to promulgate regulations for  
          intrastate Internet poker.  Specifically, this bill:  



          1)  Provides an Internet poker Web site authorized pursuant to  
          this bill may be operated within the borders of the state in  
          accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including,  
          but not limited to, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement  
          Act of 2006.

          2)  Provides for purposes of this bill, the following  
          definitions apply:


            (a) "Commission" means the California Gambling Control  
          Commission.










                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  2





            (b) "Department" means the Department of Justice.


          3)  Provides the CGCC, in consultation with the Bureau, shall  
          promulgate regulations for intrastate Internet poker.  These  
          regulations shall include, but not be limited to, both of the  
          following:


            (a) A licensing process for an individual or entity to become  
          an operator of an Internet poker Web site.


            (b) Rules for the operation of an Internet poker Web site.


          4)  Makes legislative findings and declarations.


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)  In 2000, Californians approved Proposition 1A which amended  
          Article IV, Section 19 of the State Constitution to allow slot  
          machines, lottery games, and banking card games on Indian tribal  
          lands if: (1) the Governor and an Indian tribe reach agreement  
          on a compact; (2) the Legislature approves the compact; and (3)  
          the federal government approves the compact.  Proposition 1A was  
          a follow-up to a court's determination that a 1998 statutory  
          initiative authorizing tribal casinos (Proposition 5) was  
          unconstitutional.  The State of California has signed and  
          ratified Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with 72 Tribes and there  
          are Secretarial Procedures in effect with one Tribe.  There are  
          currently 60 casinos operated by 58 Tribes.


          2)  Existing federal law, the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory  
          Act (IGRA) of 1988, established the jurisdictional framework  
          that presently governs Indian gaming. Under IGRA, before a tribe  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  3





          may lawfully conduct class III gaming (games commonly played at  
          casinos, such as slot machines and black jack), the following  
          conditions must be met: (1) The particular form of class III  
          gaming must be permitted in the state; (2) The tribe and the  
          state must have negotiated a compact that has been approved by  
          the Secretary of the Interior; and (3) The tribe must have  
          adopted a tribal gaming ordinance that has been approved by the  
          chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission.  


          3)  In 1984, California voters passed Proposition 37, an  
          exception to the State Constitution prohibition against  
          lotteries.  Proposition 37 included the California Lottery Act  
          and created the California State Lottery.


          4)  In 1933, California voters passed Proposition 5, an  
          exception to the State Constitution, legalizing pari-mutuel  
          wagering on horse racing.  Regulation of horse racing is the  
          responsibility of the California Horse Racing Board, which was  
          established by the Legislature in 1933.


          6)  Authorizes and defines "Advance Deposit Wagering" as a form  
          of pari-mutuel horse wagering in which a person "establishes an  
          account with a board-approved betting system or wagering hub  
          where the account owner provides 'wagering instructions'  
          authorizing the entity holding the account to place wagers on  
          the owner's behalf via the phone or Internet.


          5)  Provides an exception to the California Constitution to  
          allow the Legislature to authorize cities and counties to  
          provide for charitable bingo games. (Cal. Const. art. IV, §§  
          19(b), 19(c).)  


          7)  The Gambling Control Act of 1997 established the CGCC to  
          regulate legal gaming in California and the Bureau of Gambling  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  4





          Control within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate  
          and enforce controlled gambling activities in California. It  
          prohibits gambling in a city or county that does not have an  
          ordinance governing certain aspects of the operation of gambling  
          establishments, including the "hours of operation" of gambling  
          establishments.  The Act granted the CGCC licensing jurisdiction  
          over the operation of card clubs and of all persons having an  
          interest in the ownership or operation of card clubs.  


          8)  Provides that, until January 1, 2020, if a local  
          jurisdiction had not authorized legal gaming within its  
          boundaries prior to January 1, 1996, then it is prohibited from  
          authorizing legal gaming. Furthermore, until January 1, 2020,  
          the California Gambling Commission is prohibited from issuing a  
          gambling license for a gambling establishment that was not  
          licensed to operate on December 31, 1999, unless an application  
          to operate that establishment was on file with the division  
          prior to September 1, 2000.


          9) Provides "Gambling operation" means exposing for play one or  
          more controlled games that are dealt, operated, carried on,  
          conducted, or maintained for commercial gain.


          10)  Authorizes a licensed gambling establishment to contract  
          with a third party for the purpose of providing proposition  
          player services.


          11)  Provides that a "banking game" or "banked game" does not  
          include a controlled game if the published rules of the game  
          feature a player-dealer position and provides that this position  
          must be continuously and systematically rotated amongst each of  
          the participants during the play of the game.


          12)  Existing federal law, the Unlawful Internet Gaming  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  5





          Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), prevents U.S. financial  
          institutions from processing payments to online gambling  
          businesses. The UIGEA does exempt three categories of  
          transactions: intra-tribal, intrastate, and interstate horse  
          racing.  The UIGEA defines intrastate transactions are bets or  
          wagers that are made exclusively within a single state, whose  
          state laws or regulations contain certain safeguards regarding  
          such transactions, expressly authorize the bet or wager and the  
          method by which the bet or wager is made, and do not violate any  
          provisions of applicable federal gaming statues.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  


           Purpose of the bill  : For over a century, gambling in California  
          was confined to horse racing tracks and card rooms.  Then, the  
          California Lottery was authorized in 1984 and, through a series  
          of federal court cases, changes in federal law, and Proposition  
          5 and 1A-casino gambling on Native American tribal lands emerged  
          in the last decade of the 20th century.  Now it appears that the  
          Internet might be the next phase of gambling expansion in  
          California.  





          The author states, in addition, to countless meetings held among  
          the various stakeholders and interested parties, both supporting  
          and opposing the concept of Internet gaming, the Legislature has  
          held numerous hearings and taken hours of testimony over the  
          past 7+ years on the issues and challenges surrounding the  
          authorization of intrastate Internet gaming in California.  On  
          April 23, 2014, the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee  
          held a lengthy informational hearing titled "The Future Public  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  6





          Policy and Fiscal Implications of Authorizing iPoker Gaming in  
          California."  These hearings have helped to identify problems  
          and solutions that have narrowed the differences among various  
          stakeholders, but, to date, no vote has ever been recorded on  
          this issue in a legislative committee.





          The author emphasizes that although various stakeholders and  
          interested parties have different views relating to the  
          legalization of iPoker in California, those entities have worked  
          together in good faith toward the possible development of a  
          regulatory framework.





          It has been reported that well over a million Californians are  
          playing Internet poker on Web sites run by offshore companies  
          that are not regulated or licensed by any U.S. government entity  
          - these poker players are at the mercy of unscrupulous operators  
          who may cheat them out of their money with absolutely no  
          recourse.  As a result, Californians who play poker on these  
          websites have no way of protecting sensitive personal  
          information when they use their credit card or provide other  
          financial information to such a site.  In addition, hundreds of  
          millions of dollars are leaving the California economy, money  
          (and tax revenues) that could stay in the state if intrastate  
          iPoker was legalized in California.





          The author states, the intent of this bill is to assist the  
          California Legislature to further consider a legislative  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  7





          framework to authorize qualified entities, which are to be  
          determined, to operate intrastate Internet Poker. 





          The framework shall extend consumer protections to Californians  
          who play online poker, ensure that the revenues from online  
          poker are realized in California, and protect the public  
          interest by ensuring that the various aspects of online poker  
          are sanctioned and regulated by the state.  The framework shall  
          take into consideration the negative impacts of gambling, and  
          spur a new industry in California which will provide economic  
          inducements to California's economy, including job creation.  





          Furthermore, the framework shall include strict standards to  
          ensure that the online poker games are fair, played by persons  
          of legal age who are located in California, and using advanced  
          technologies to identify and restrict access by minors.





          The author states that any iPoker legislative proposal must  
          include a strong regulatory framework that protects Californians  
          and cracks down on illegal online gaming, replacing it with  
          safeguards against compulsive gambling, money laundering, fraud,  
          and identity theft. In addition, the framework should also  
          consider licensing, enforcement, regulatory authority, and  
          taxation. 











                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  8







          The author concludes that the goal of this measure is to further  
          explore how a well-regulated iPoker framework can be developed  
          in California that will be used as a national model for creating  
          jobs and revenue for the state while providing a safe,  
          regulated, and responsible entertainment option for its  
          residents.





           General Background  :  The global legal framework for Internet  
          gambling is a complicated mix of laws and regulations.  In the  
          United States, both federal and state statutes apply.  Gambling  
          is generally regulated at the state level, with federal law  
          supporting state laws and regulations to ensure that interstate  
          and foreign commerce do not circumvent them.  


          In October 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful  
          Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C. 5361 et  
          seq., which generally prohibits the use of banking instruments,  
          including credit cards, checks, and fund transfers, for  
          interstate Internet gambling, essentially prohibiting online  
          gambling by United States citizens, but which includes  
          exceptions that permit individual states to create a regulatory  
          framework to enable intrastate Internet gambling, provided that  
          the bets or wagers are made exclusively within a single state  
          under specified circumstances.  





          In summary, federal law prohibits online gambling by U.S.  
          citizens but includes specific provisions that allow individual  
          states to offer intrastate Internet gaming, provided that state  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  9





          laws permitting and regulating that activity could impose  
          reasonable protections against participation by underage persons  
          or by persons located outside the boundaries of the states.  


          Some gaming experts say that gambling over the Internet is not  
          just inevitable but mainstream and readily available to anyone  
          desiring to partake in this activity.  Recent reports state that  
          Americans spent approximately $2.6 billion gambling online in  
          2012, despite being illegal under UIGEA.  Most of that money  
          still goes to offshore gambling websites, meaning the websites  
          are operated in other countries where online gambling is  
          regulated or non-existent.  These gaming sites are out of the  
          reach of U.S. courts and regulators, exposing online players to  
          significant risks without effective legal recourse.  

          Many gaming experts believe that legalizing intrastate Internet  
          gaming could have a significant positive impact on state  
          revenues by redirecting gaming revenues into a domestic, legal  
          operation that otherwise currently go abroad.  However, others  
          have stated this is not easy because it would take time to  
          establish operations, approve contracts, games, hubs, and  
          convince existing players to redirect their gambling to legal,  
          domestic sites.

          In March 2015, Morgan Stanley revised its forecast for the  
          nationwide online betting market at $2.7 billion by 2020, down  
          from the $5 billion it predicted in late September 2014.  The  
          firm cited several reasons for the reevaluation, from payment  
          processing and geolocation problems, to a lack of effective  
          marketing and the continued strength of the offshore market.   
          Three states - Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware - have legalized  
          Internet gambling, but online betting is off to a slow start.   
          It took in $135 million last year; Morgan Stanley initially  
          forecast $678 million.  The firm forecasts the 2017 online  
          market will be $410 million, down from an initial estimate of  
          $1.3 billion.  It predicts 15 states will legalize online  
          gambling by 2020, with legalization in larger states prompting  
          smaller ones to follow suit.








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  10






          Gambling opponents, consumer advocates and addiction researchers  
          warn of potentially dire consequences. They say the gaming  
          industry will use techniques perfected in online advertising and  
          marketing to target vulnerable consumers, leading to a spike in  
          problem gambling and, more broadly, a rise in income inequality.

          As mentioned above, under federal law, states can authorize  
          online gambling only for residents of their states within their  
          state lines.  So far, only three U.S. states allow licensed  
          online casinos and poker sites.  These states are Nevada,  
          Delaware, and New Jersey.  In all three states, a significant  
          portion of the established gaming interests in the states bought  
          into the idea that online gambling could help - not harm - their  
          business models.  It is thought by some analysts that California  
          would be a key U.S. state in the legalization process.  

           California's Involvement in iGaming Legislation  :  At stated  
          above, under the terms of the federal Unlawful Internet Gaming  
          Enforcement Act, states may authorize intrastate internet poker.  
           California, however, currently has no such law.  As such, it is  
          legal to play poker in Native American tribal casinos and  
          state-approved card clubs inside California, but not legal to  
          play online poker on a site that allows players from California,  
          other states, and other countries to wager against each other.   
          The effect of the federal law prohibiting interstate internet  
          gambling and California's lack of a law authorizing intrastate  
          internet gambling has been to channel players in California to  
          offshore sites.  

          Since 2008, eleven legislative proposals have been introduced in  
          California in an attempt to change the nature of Internet  
          gambling.  Each bill was referred to the respective Governmental  
          Organization Committee in each house but no testimony or vote  
          was ever taken on the issue.

           On-line Poker Revenue Projections for California  :  Gaming  
          experts state that if iPoker was legalized in California, the  
          state would benefit financially in three main ways: taxes paid  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  11





          on operator revenues and profits, income taxes from player  
          winnings, and taxes paid by suppliers and employees of gaming  
          sites. The largest revenue source would be from site operators  
          who would pay fees based on Gross Gaming Revenues (GGR).  GGR  
          consists of total wagers made by customers less the winnings  
          paid back to its customers, and a tax rate is applied on the  
          base.

          A forecast by Morgan Stanley stated that given California's  
          population of 38 million people (vs. NJ's 8 million), "we expect  
          the market to reach $1.1B by 2017." Morgan Stanley estimates  
          that the online poker market in California will be approximately  
          $435 million in Year 1, growing to $1.1 billion by Year 3. 

          A study published by Academicon and PokerScout in December 2013  
          stated,  if California were to legalize and regulate online  
          poker, the market could generate revenue between $217 million  
          and $263 million in its first year of operation and up to $384  
          million in year ten.  

          California's population is larger than every country in Europe  
          but eight and is viewed by many as possessing the needed online  
          poker liquidity to maintain the player base that is crucial to  
          ensure that such a system is successful from a monetary  
          standpoint.  

           States that have legalized Internet Gaming  :  

           Nevada  :  An Internet gaming bill, AB466, was enacted in June  
          2001.  It authorized certain commercial casinos to offer  
          so-called "interactive gaming." Interactive gaming, currently  
          limited to intrastate Internet poker, went live in April 2013  
          pursuant to final regulations that were promulgated in December  
          2011.

           New Jersey  :  An Internet gaming bill, A2578, was enacted in  
          February 2013. It authorized commercial casinos to offer  
          so-called "Internet gaming." Internet gaming, currently limited  
          to intrastate Internet poker, table games and slots, went live  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  12





          in November 2013 pursuant to final regulations that were  
          promulgated in September 2013.

           Delaware  :  An Internet gaming bill, HB 333, was enacted in 2012.  
           It authorized games, such as slots, roulette, poker and  
          blackjack, which are to be played on each Delaware casino's  
          website and controlled centrally by the Delaware Lottery.

           2014 Legislative Action by States  :  In 2014, eight states  
          considered but did not enact legislation that would authorize  
          Internet gambling or amend existing Internet gambling statutes.   
          Some states, including California and New York, considered  
          legislation that would authorize Internet poker, only, while  
          others, including Pennsylvania, considered legislation that  
          would authorize some combination of Internet poker, table games  
          and slot games.  The states were as follows:  California,  
          Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey,  
          and Pennsylvania.

          It should be noted that California, New York and Pennsylvania,  
          account for roughly 22 percent of the U.S. population.

           What about Federal Legislation to Regulate iGaming  ?  On the  
          federal level, proposals have been introduced to establish a  
          federal regulatory system for Internet gaming. Congressmen  
          Barney Frank (2010), Senator Harry Reid (2012), Congressman  
          Peter King (2013), and Congressman Joe Barton (2011 & 2013)  
          introduced bills which would have instituted federal regulation  
          of a legalized system of Internet gaming.  However, all of the  
          bills stalled in their respective house of origin.  It has been  
          stated that Federal regulation would provide a single,  
          comprehensive mechanism for consistent licensing, operation and  
          enforcement of U.S. Internet gambling laws.  

           2015 Federal Action on iGaming - The Restoration of America's  
          Wire Act  :  U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)  
          reintroduced a bill (HR 707) called the Restoration of America's  
          Wire Act (RAWA) for the 2015 Congressional session.  The bill  
          awaits action by the House Judiciary Committee.  In March 2015,  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  13





          the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland  
          Security and Investigations held a hearing on RAWA.  The bill is  
          pending before the House Judiciary Committee.  The Department of  
          Justice's current position on the Wire Act as it applies to  
          online gambling is that the Wire Act only applies to "online  
          sports betting."

          RAWA would amend provisions of the federal criminal code,  
          commonly known as the Federal Wire Act of 1961, to provide that  
          the prohibition against transmission of wagering information  
          shall apply to any bet or wager, or information assisting in the  
          placing of any bet or wager (thus making such prohibition  
          applicable to all types of gambling activities, including  
          Internet gambling.  The bill is a reintroduction of previous  
          bills introduced by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South  
          Carolina) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in March of  
          2014 on the same subject matter.  The bills were not taken up by  
          either chamber before Congress adjourned.
           


          In Support :  Writing in support, the Morongo Band of Mission  
          Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Commerce Casino,  
                                           Hawaiian Gardens Casino and Bicycle Casino and Amaya Inc.  
          states, "We strongly support authorizing online poker in  
          California and commit to what we understand will be a  
          deliberative process to develop, and ultimately approve, a bill  
          in 2015 to authorize iPoker and establish a safe California  
          market.  We know that finalizing the policy that will ultimately  
          regulate California's online poker marketplace will not be  
          quick, nor will it be easy.  The stagnation of the last six  
          years has made that obvious.  But so far, 2015 has been  
          different.  Hard lines and tough talk have morphed into open  
          minds and dialogue.  Authorizing online poker will be good for  
          millions of consumers and poker players who will benefit from a  
          safe, regulated, commercial gaming environment where they are  
          protected.  Every year that California fails to act not only  
          puts consumers at risk while playing online games from offshore  
          localities that provide few protections and regulations, but our  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  14





          state also loses out on collecting hundreds of millions of  
          dollars that can be used for essential programs like public  
          schools, public safety, healthcare and social services.  We are  
          committed to putting in the hours and the time necessary to  
          establish a vibrant, competitive marketplace, one that provides  
          superior consumer protections, requires strict oversight and  
          regulation of licensees, and service providers, and ensures that  
          the state receives a reasonable return."





          The California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, Thoroughbred  
          Owners of California and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club states, "the  
          Thoroughbred racing industry has enjoyed a storied and historic  
          history in California featuring some of the world's greatest  
          horses, jockeys, trainers and more than a few colorful owners  
          throughout the years. Thoroughbred racing generates more than  
          $2.5 billion dollars to the State's economy and directly or  
          indirectly provides more than 50,000 jobs in the Golden State.   
          It goes without saying that Internet poker is the most  
          significant legislation facing horse racing in more than a  
          decade. Currently, racing benefits from the exclusivity of  
          providing the only form of legal gambling on the Internet.  
          Racing views Internet Poker as a new form of gaming, which will  
          increase racing revenue and provide a marketing tool to create  
          interest in a youthful demographic, which will continue the  
          history of this beautiful sport. We believe passage of an  
          Internet poker bill which allows racing associations, card rooms  
          and Tribal Governments to compete equally in California will  
          benefit state revenues, protect consumers and underage gamblers,  
          protect consumer's privacy and create new job opportunities. The  
          Legislature must act now in order to establish a regulatory and  
          enforcement frame work and put a stop to illegal offshore  
          sites."











                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  15







          The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council writes, "It is  
          crucial to the horse racing industry to be included, along with  
          Indian tribes and card clubs to be allowed to participate fully  
          as licensees in this emerging on-line on-line gaming market.   
          Our industry is currently the only industry that accepts on-line  
          wagers and the program, which has been in effect for five years  
          has proved to be critical source of revenue for our industry and  
          operated without any issues related to corruption or  
          illegality."





          The horse racing industry employs thousands of workers both at  
          the track and in agriculture. There are many Teamsters employed  
          in the industry. While the horseracing industry has weathered  
          the storm of the growth in competition with other areas of  
          gaming, basic fairness demands that it be a participant in any  
          gaming market expansion. Horse racing deserves equal treatment  
          with other sectors of the gaming industry.  





           In opposition  .  Writing in opposition, the Agua Caliente Band of  
          Cahuilla Indians states this measure would broadly authorize  
          intrastate iPoker in California and require CGCC, in  
          consultation with the Bureau, to promulgate regulations to  
          enable play.  Our Tribal Council supports thoughtful legislation  
          that does not amount to an expansion of gaming in California.   
          The voters have already said "no" to that.  A credible bill in  
          our view would include substantive protections for the consumer,  
          including ensuring that only credible and suitable operators are  
          permitted to conduct iPoker in the state, and only those  
          entities currently allowed to offer poker in this state would be  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  16





          considered licensees.





          The Barona Band of Mission Indians states, "It was our  
          understanding that the topic of iPoker would be pursued in a  
          thoughtful and deliberate manner this year - including thorough  
          informational hearings during which key issues and stakeholder  
          perspectives will be discussed.  Given the complexity of the  
          issue and the landscape of the stakeholder interests, we believe  
          completion of this key step is vital to a debate that should not  
          be rushed." 





          The Pechanga Band of Luiseņo Indians writes, "Online poker  
          legislation is a significant public policy issue with long-term  
          implications for the State of California, its citizens and our  
          tribal governments.  Although stakeholders have made a lot of  
          progress in building consensus on language, important issues  
          remain outstanding including bad actor provisions and  
          eligibility for licensure.  Just last year, our Tribe and twelve  
          others support comprehensive legislation that abides by the  
          longstanding public policy principle of limited gaming, protects  
          children and the vulnerable, creates jobs for Californians,  
          provides additional revenues for State services and protects  
          both consumers and the high suitability standards of the gaming  
          industry from organizations that do not respect the law."





          The California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion opposes this  
          bill stating, "This measure seeks to legalize a massive  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  17





          expansion in legal gambling in California.  This bill would have  
          the state sanction the conversion of every smartphone into a  
          mobile casino, hugely impacting underage gamblers, college  
          students, and those with problem or pathological gambling  
          inclinations.  The cots to California families and taxpayers  
          could be immense, far outweighing any possible revenues to the  
          state."  CAGE would prefer that state officials clamp down on  
          illegal online gambling which is happening already before  
          opening up the floodgates to state-sanctioned Internet poker.





           Related legislation  :  


          AB 9 (Gatto) of 2015.  This bill, which would be known as the  
          Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015, would establish  
          a framework to authorize intrastate Internet poker, as  
          specified.  (Pending in Assembly G.O. Committee - Set for  
          hearing on July 8, 2015)


          AB 167 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2015.  This bill, which would be known  
          as the Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act of 2015, would  
          establish a framework to authorize intrastate Internet poker, as  
          specified.  (Pending in Assembly G.O. Committee - Set for  
          hearing on July 8, 2015)


          SB 278 (Hall) of 2015.  An identical measure to AB 431 (Gray)  
          would authorize the operation of an Internet poker web site  
          within the borders of the state.  SB 278 requires CGCC, in  
          consultation with the Bureau, to promulgate regulations for  
          intrastate Internet poker.  SB 278 would require those  
          regulations to include, but not be limited to, a licensing  
          process for an individual or entity to become an operator of an  
          Internet poker Web site and rules for the operation of an  








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  18





          Internet poker Web site.  (Pending in Senate G.O. Committee)


           Prior legislation  :  


          AB 2291 (Jones-Sawyer) of 2013/2014 Session.  Would have  
          authorized intrastate Internet poker, as specified.  (Never  
          heard in Committee on Assembly G.O.)


          SB 1366 (Correa) of 2013/2014 Session.  Would have authorized  
          intrastate Internet poker, as specified.  The bill would  
          authorize eligible entities to apply for a license to operate an  
          intrastate Internet poker Web site offering the play of  
          authorized games to players within California, as specified.   
          (Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)





          SB 51 (Wright) of 2013/2014 Session.  Would have authorized  
          intrastate Internet gambling, as specified.  The bill would  
          authorize eligible entities to apply to CGCC for a 10-year  
          license to operate an intrastate Internet gambling Web site  
          offering the play of authorized gambling games to registered  
          players within California.  (Never heard in Committee on Senate  
          G.O.)





          SB 678 (Correa) of 2013/2014 Session.  Would have authorized  
          intrastate Internet poker, as specified. The bill would have  
          authorize eligible entities to apply for a license to operate an  
          intrastate Internet poker Web site offering the play of  
          authorized games to players within California, as specified.   








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  19





          (Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)





          SB 1463 (Wright) of 2011-12 Session.  Would have enacted the  
          "Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private  
          Partnership Act of 2012" for the stated purpose of authorizing,  
          intrastate Internet gambling.  (Never heard in Committee on  
          Senate G.O.)





          SB 40 (Correa) of 2011-12 Session.  Would have authorized  
          intrastate Internet poker, as specified.  The bill required the  
          CGCC to adopt  emergency regulations, in consultation with the  
          department, providing for the issuance of licenses to operate  
          intrastate Internet poker Web sites. 



          SB 45 (Wright) of 2011-12 Session.  Would have established a  
          framework to authorize intrastate


          Internet gambling, as specified.  The bill would have required  
          the Bureau to issue a request for proposals to enter into  
          contracts with up to 3 hub operators, as defined, to provide  
          lawful Internet


          gambling games to registered players in California for a period  
          of 20 years, as specified.  (Never heard in Committee on Senate  
          G.O.)










                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  20








          SB 1485 (Wright) of 2009-10 Session.  Would have enacted the  
          "Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private  
          Partnership Act of 2010" for the stated purpose of authorizing,  
          intrastate Internet gambling.  (Never heard in Committee on  
          Senate G.O.)





          AB 2026 (Levine) of 2007-08 Session.  Would have authorized the  
          intrastate play of various Internet poker games to be offered by  
          licensed gambling establishments registered with CGCC.  


          (Never heard in Committee on Senate G.O.)





          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          Amaya Inc.


          Bicycle Casino


          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council








                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  21







          California Thoroughbred Breeders Association


          Commerce Casino


          Del Mar Thoroughbred Club


          Hawaiian Gardens Casino


          Morongo Band of Mission Indians


          Oak Tree Racing Association


          Pala Band of Mission Indians


          Rincon Band of Luiseņo Indians


          San Manuel Band of Mission Indians


          The Jockeys' Guild


          Thoroughbred Owners of California


          United Auburn Indian Community











                                                                     AB 431


                                                                    Page  22






          Opposition


          Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians


          Barona Band of Mission Indians


          California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion


          Pechanga Band of Luiseņo Indians


          Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians




          Analysis Prepared by:Eric Johnson / G.O. / (916) 319-2531