Online poker bill in California on its second step

California seems to be having a difficult time to understand the online gambling market. While some US states are already on the track, the Golden State still cannot see the advantages of one of the most profitable markets, worldwide speaking. California Assemblyman Adam Gray, brought to the table Assembly Bill 431, which represents the only chance for the Golden State to legalize online poker. This week has been finally the moment that poker players have been waiting for. California Assembly Appropriations Committee has finally passed the measure, with no opposition at all. Assembly Bill 431, which passed the Governmental Organization Committee in April, is now on its second step, ready for vote. The Committee has come to the point that the bill “declares the framework shall include strict standards to ensure the fairness and integrity of the games, appropriate consumer protections, fair revenue for the state, safeguards against underage play, and mechanisms to address negative impacts of Internet poker gambling”. Supporters of online poker, like Steven Miller, director for the Poker Players Alliance in California, have come out publicly. Miller said in a press release: “Today marks another historic day for online poker in California. A second committee has cleared a bill that marks a monumental step toward providing thousands of consumers with what they need and deserve, a safe place to play poker online.”

But on the other hand, the gambling monopolies in the United States, land based casinos located on the Native American reserves, are trying to fight back. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, plus eight other tribes, are completely against Assembly Bill 431 or any other legal form to legalize online gambling: “Continuing to pass this measure as a spot bill does not advance a state regulatory structure for iPoker. The Pechanga tribe is chiefly concerned that it would lose its commercial monopoly on state gambling should online poker become legalized. The tribal organizations won’t support legislation to allow iGaming without specific language regarding licensing and preventing new vendors into the market, a clause Gray’s bill omits.”