If approved, House Bill 593 would allow the Lottery Commission to license two casinos in the state – one right away and one in two years’ time – with each licence costing $50 million. The bill would also have a $500,000 fee to apply for a license and its holder would be granted permission to install 5,000 slots and tables. New Hampshire’s share of the proceeds would stand at 35% of slot revenue and 8% of table games, which would in turn lower business taxes.

In a report by UnionLeader, the House gambling plan’s main man, Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Stephen Stepanek, said his committee will hold a public hearing on proposed changes to the plan before bringing the proposal to a vote.

As always, some members of the House have opposed the plan, some lawmakers say the bill would give the license winners a monopoly therefore violating the state Constitution, and some argue it will create problems costing the state additional revenue. Chairman of the Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling, Jim Ruben, said in UnionLeader’s report the real reason the vote was delayed was because the House leadership found “they were hopelessly underwater on the vote count and they wanted to avoid the embarrassment.”

Bitter Ruben said his group will be there Monday to oppose the bill at the public hearing, which doesn’t bode well for the bill’s backers – House leadership – especially since the House has never approved expanding gambling that includes video slots machines or casinos. NH’s legal history in gambling expansion, such as its online lottery, tells us that an approval on this bill is also very unlikely.

The first panel of witnesses was a solo affair starring Robert Odawi Porter, president of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Porter said the topic of the day revolved around two pressing needs: to protect Indian jobs and to preserve Indian rights to participate in internet gaming. “Indian nations not only demand a seat at the table, we insist that we already own our own table, and we should not have it stolen from us as has too often been the case in the past.” Porter warned the Committee of a “brazen power grab” by Nevada casinos, and rejected the notion that non-Indian gaming companies had “any technological or business savvy beyond what we have.”

Porter couldn’t say that online poker via international sites had “induced tremendous harm” to Seneca gambling operations, but warned of a “certain slippery slope element” if other channels were introduced by states. In Porter’s view, if state governments go forward with their own intrastate online gambling plans, the biggest challenge for tribes is that “many of our [gambling] agreements are tied to a geographic exclusivity.” Opening up those geographic zones to competition via internet gambling “presents the greatest challenge for the Congress in marshalling a solution to protect those geographic-based businesses.”

By way of example, Porter said that under their existing compact with the state of New York, the Seneca Nation enjoys a 16-county slot machine exclusivity right, for which it pays “25% off the top” to state and local governments. If Congress were to simply open up igaming without regard to that existing arrangement, the result would be “serious injury and impairment” to the Senecas’ contractual relationships with the state, the tribe’s creditors and business partners. Such a scenario could inflict “a tremendous degree of economic injury to us and significantly destabilize if not destroy our businesses.”

First up on Panel #2 was Kevin K. Washburn, dean of law at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Washburn opined that the DoJ opinion has “forced Congress’ hand.” Indian gaming was “getting government off the hook” for federal funds that would otherwise need to be expended, underscoring the need to “protect this federal resource for tribes” that has been “so important for self-determination and self-governance.” If states with tribal compacts got involved in internet gaming, the resulting loss of exclusivity would require tribes to be compensated. Tribes would essentially be off the hook for paying their mandated revenue shares to states.

Washburn described the historic US approach to gambling as “schizophrenic,” with “50 state laboratories that get to decide gaming policy each on their own.” Lotteries, VLTs and Indian gaming, which Washburn claimed represented nearly 60% of all US gaming, were “all governmental forms of gaming” that indicated “a common belief” that gaming should be a “public resource.” that helps “develop governmental resources.” States should be allowed to opt-out of a federal scheme, but since most states agree on the harmful aspects of gaming (problem gambling, money laundering, consumer protection, etc.), Washburn said it would be “far more efficient to have one entity at the federal level” handing gaming regulation.

Next up was I. Nelson Rose, senior professor at Whittier Law School in Encino, CA (and CalvinAyre.com contributor). Rose said his reading of the courts suggests that tribes taking bets from patrons not physically located on Indian land is possible, but it would be a privilege granted by the state, not a right. Rose reminded the Committee that gambling decisions have historically been made at the state level. Federal gambling laws were essentially enforcement measures, and all but two of these (with the exception of the Wire Act and anti-lottery statutes) require gambling to be illegal in a particular state for a federal statute to apply. Now with the Wire Act “gone”, there is nothing preventing states from going down the intrastate online gambling road.

Six state lotteries are already selling lottery subscriptions online. Rose said these states could now choose to sell individual tickets online, but if they put ‘scratchers’ online, the effect would to create an online slot machine, which would threaten tribal exclusivity deals. Rose feels larger tribes have the political power necessary to protect their state compacts, but smaller tribes would be “out of luck” without some kind of federal protection.

Rose believes that, in many states, established local operators will get the igaming licenses. However, Rose expects a large state like California to demand $100m license fees up front, a sum that state tribes and card clubs don’t have, but big Nevada outfits (like Caesars Entertainment) do. Some tribes have enough political power to demand that if there are (say) three licenses issued by a state, a tribe or a consortium of tribes will get at least one. But, again, smaller tribes would likely get left behind.

Rounding out Panel #2 was Professor Alex Skibine from the University of Utah college of law. Skibine said tribes that already have state compacts should be legally permitted to offer internet gambling. “No reason to treat internet gaming as a new form of gaming. If poker is allowed, internet poker should follow.” States might try to restrict tribes to wagering that originates on Indian land, but Skibine said this limitation “makes no sense when it comes to internet gaming, since internet gaming is borderless.”

Skibine said federal legislation was necessary “because of the nature of the internet”, but it would have to incorporate four points. First, it would need to continue to recognize Indian tribes as sovereign governments with the authority to regulate gaming occurring on their lands. Second, tribes should be able to conduct internet gaming with customers located in any other jurisdiction that allows it, even if outside the tribe’s state. Third, there should be no state taxation of tribal gaming revenues, and fourth, tribes shouldn’t be required to amend existing compacts with the states to specifically include igaming.

Panel #3 began with Poker Players Alliance litigation support director Patrick Fleming, who said the PPA was committed to a “broad, cross-border market for online poker … that fosters as much competition as possible between game operators, and that absolutely includes the very important tribal gaming operators.” Fleming said the DoJ opinion had opened up a “Pandora’s box of possibilities” but that internet poker was “not a threat to tribal gaming interests” but an opportunity.

Fleming claimed that poker represents a mere 1% of tribal gaming revenues. Poker brings people into tribal casinos but is not the game that supports their existence. Fleming suggested that internet poker could benefit tribal interests by bringing people into casinos to enjoy the social aspect of game, as opposed to state lotteries offering online scratchers, which would directly compete with tribal interests.

Last to speak was Phoenix attorney Glenn Feldman, who has served as outside general counsel to the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians since 1979. Feldman said legislation that limits or restricts the ability of tribal governments to reap the benefits of internet gaming is simply unacceptable, but tribal governments need to be “smart and flexible in their thinking on the issue”. Feldman said legal internet gambling in the US was “inevitable;” therefore, he advised all his tribal clients that “just saying no is not an effective strategy for dealing with inevitable change.”

While Feldman maintained that tribes needed to be “full and active participants” when legislation was crafted, he said there was no need to rush legislation. Feldman didn’t agree that the DoJ opinion would immediately “open the floodgates” and thus Congress would be making a “serious mistake” if it were to rush into enacting federal legislation “without the careful deliberative process the subject deserves.” Feldman drew parallels between today and the 1987 Supreme Court California v. Cabazon decision that led to the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Twenty months passed between the Cabazon decision and IGRA’s enactment, and Congress had been considering Indian gaming regulation for three years prior to the Cabazon decision.

The Senate hearing concluded without any formal action being taken. A third House of Representatives hearing on internet poker was rumored to be scheduled early this year, but no date or speaker list has yet been published.

Russia

Malaysia also saw action with officials confiscating a number of computers as well as detaining as many as 47 men. Kedah Police seized 225 computer units that they estimate have a worth of RM225,000 in Kuala Muda and Koda Setar. It was part of the week long “Ops Dadu” operation consisting of raids on 28 premises suspected of flouting the law. During a news conference, Kedah CID deputy chief Supt. Nazlan Idris said: “Some cyber cafe operators continue to operate Internet gambling activities despite our raids, for example one in Pokok Sena which had been raided three times.”

He added most of those arrested were between 20 and 40 years old and have already been released on bail pending enquiries. Operators of the casino aren’t likely to get off with a simply slap on the wrists though. The maximum sentence levied on them is RM100k (US$33k) per gaming machine or five years in jail…or both.

The bill's sponsor Rep. Lou Blessing

A legislative committee in Ohio approved a bill yesterday that addresses slot-like gambling at racetracks, as well as operation in the state’s four casinos. However, the committee did reject a provision that would have provided millions of dollars to a problem gambling fund.

A report by Cleveland.com reveals that broad support was received for changes in the bill including an amendment to keep bingo games open until 2am at charitable gaming facilities, instead of the midnight curfew currently enforced.

The bill, named House Bill 386, will now go up to the entire House of Representatives for a vote next week, and if approved would then go to the Senate for consideration. If the state wants gambling expansion, the bill needs to move along .It’s as simple as – but it has experienced delays due to disagreements over which casino principals would be subject to state background checks.

Rep. Matt Lundy, a Democrat from Elyria supporting the bill, said: “I want to keep things moving forward, I’m concerned about any more delays.”

Although Lundy supported the bill, he did not get enough support to increase funding for gambling addiction treatment, which could eventually be a problem for those wanting gambling expansion. Why? Well, the 2009 Ohio constitutional amendment permits that 2% of casino revenue is to be earmarked for gambling and substance addiction-related programs.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lou Blessing, said he did not support the change because he “didn’t see a need for additional money”. A Republican from Cincinnati, Rep Lou Blessing, however, said the extra revenue could double the money for addiction treatment, even if he did doubt the slots would create so many addicts to justify the extra spending. He’s got a point.

Nevertheless, Democrats on the committee said they were hopeful the issue would come up later in the legislative process and be rectified further down the line.

Utah is one of the lone stars when it comes to online poker in that they’re vehemently opposed to any gambling having a place. Sandstrom’s bill would do just that and is very likely to make its way through the state’s legislature in the near future. It doesn’t mean that some won’t worry about the state’s web economy and whether the blocking of sites is a necessary cost. There are some that want to better understand the bill itself as well

“We need to have this information prior to voting on this bill,” Rep. Patrice Arent, D-Salt Lake City, said.

Sandstrom was unmoved.

“If we allow Internet gaming in Utah, we will have casinos,” he added.

What he’s referring to is that any federal gambling industry legislation will mean Indian-owned casinos popping up in Utah faster than branches of Subway – something that no lawmaker wants. Sandstrom need not worry. His bill will go through the legislature long before anything peeks through at federal level and no Indian will ever step on Utah land. So Steve there’s no need to build a fence just yet.

The acknowledgement that sports betting constitutes as “a form of commercial exploitation of competitions” and the consequent call to the European Commission and EU Member States to recognise and protect the competition organisers’ property rights, “guaranteeing a significant contribution from betting operators” towards “funding grassroots sports” and “protecting the integrity of competitions”

The problem here will be the European Parliament trying to put it into practice. It’s been pointed out just how difficult it will be to reach a Europe-wide consensus on the sports betting industry and the very same problem would be present here. Thanks to the lack of harmonization in the continent’s different markets and the balkanization that has taken place, it’s very unlikely they can do anything else but call for countries to take action. MEPs later went on to reiterate their policy on anything-untoward going on and stated:

A zero-tolerance policy against match-fixing, illegal betting, money laundering and doping in professional sport by making them criminal offences

As has been shown in the latest high profile fixing cases this is already well and truly underway. Unfortunately it’s the less developed nation that have been admitted into the European Union (EU) that often experience fixing and corruption problems and they’re the ones that need to take the focus of this report.

At the moment betting companies pay a 15% tax on their profits, but they can avoid that by basing their online operations in other international locations (like how Betfair moved to Gibraltar), with 18 of the 20 main bookmakers in the country doing just that. Hancock’s bill, which was debated in the commons yesterday, would close this “loophole” by levying the tax where the punter makes the bet as opposed to where the bookmaker is based.

MP Hancock and Ladbrokes‘ Head of PR, Ciaran O’Brien, joined Channel Four News’ TV studio last night to discuss the possibility of such regimes.

When comparing gambling to food and entertainment, and asked “why should betting have extra tax slapped on it”, Hancock said: “There’s a long-standing tradition of having a tax on betting in this country – but there’s also a levy paid on bet’s that go on horseracing, which pays for the product, the race to go on, the prize money, to ensure that we have great racing on which the profits from the bookies are made.

“So it’s part of the economy of bookmaking and racing that in order to have good profits for bookmakers we need to have good racing and that levy is an important part of the mix too.”

O’Brien responded that the gambling industry is already very highly taxed. “British based companies, like Ladbrokes, at the moment are paying £1 billion in tax and are only making about £600 million in profit from it,” he said. “The important thing is this proposal must be done in a sustainable way.”

He continued: “The Last time the government looked at this in 2005, they set the rate online at 15%. That was never going to be sustainable; it encouraged businesses to locate offshore – it meant British based businesses like Ladbrokes couldn’t compete and we were forced to watch our customer relocate to competitors. And that’s not sustainable for levy, for competition or consumer protection.”

When asked whether his proposed bill was in fact killing the UK’s economy and not helping it to grow, Hancock responded: “I respect Ladbrokes argument that they wouldn’t mind being part of a level playing field in the UK. But if your competitors are allowed to move offshore then of course there’s competitive pressure for you to move offshore too. I want to see all UK betting British so the appropriate tax and correct levy is paid.

“The arguments that the 15% tax on profits is too high, I can understand and it should be looked at but it’s hardly good for the UK to have 18 of its 20 biggest betting companies having jobs going offshore  because of the system that’s set up at the moment, so I think it’d be good for growth to bring it all back onshore.”

Hancock argued that there are hundreds of small, independent bookmakers who are based in the UK who are too small to go down the “avoidance route of offshore” and there isn’t a level playing field for them, either, as they need to pay the tax, agreeing with O’Brien that “we need a fair system.”

When posed the question “why didn’t Ladbrokes keep their operations in Britain like Coral and Bet365”, O’Brien argued those companies too have made it clear if things don’t change for the better they’ll need to move their operations to a different location.

“Let’s remember; we’re a big retail operator who pays more taxes in the UK than we’re making profits, so we welcome a review,” O’Brien said. “Let’s get a sustainable level of tax on this industry that enables it continues it to sustain level of employment and the levy economic growth and that means a sensible rate of tax.”

Welcoming the constructive response from O’Brien, Hancock concluded: “We’ve got some great racing in the UK and we need to keep it that way – making sure the industry prospers in the years to come.”

The treasury are consulting on aspects of the bill at the moment and the Budget, due to be held on 21 March this year, will outline the government’s plans in more detail. Will Hancock’s bill succeed in getting UK betting companies’ operations back on British soil? Or is it just another way for the government to make easy money, while making it more difficult for gambling businesses to grow?

Neither Elie nor Campos, both of whom were involved in processing payments for online poker companies, were charged with violations of the Wire Act on Black Friday, but their attorneys suggested that the DoJ’s new stance on the Wire Act should similarly negate the relevant aspects of the Illegal Gambling Businesses Act (IGBA), which Elie and Campos were most definitely charged with violating. Specifically, the defendants feel that if the DoJ now believes “bets and wagers” unrelated to sports betting don’t violate the Wire Act, then “bets and wagers” on games that aren’t “house backed” (i.e. poker) shouldn’t fall afoul of the IGBA. Forbes’ Nathan Vardi reported that Kaplan wasn’t convinced, “at least at this stage,” leaving all eight counts intact as the men prepare for their trial, currently scheduled for April 9.

Still more drama unfolding from Groupe Bernard Tapie’s attempts to acquire the assets of Black Friday ‘star’ Full Tilt Poker (FTP). Following news that a group of pro poker players owed millions to FTP, Laurent Tapie gave an interview to iGaming France in which he clarified that 19 poker pros had outstanding debts to FTP totaling $16.5m. Poker Player Newspaper’s Wendeen H. Eolis claims to have uncovered more detail on what GBT lawyer Behnam Dayanim called the “greater liabilities” weighing down FTP’s ledgers. Eolis quoted “FTP insiders” as saying GBT was shocked – shocked! – to discover that the money left in FTP’s corporate accounts was $15-20m less than anticipated. In addition, passive FTP shareholders, apparently not convinced that the long-suffering poker-playing public will welcome the poker brand with open arms anytime soon, are allegedly balking at taking stock in the ‘new’ FTP. Finally, unanticipated liabilities in the form of debts to FTP vendors and service providers, for which GBT would be on the hook, may total another $15m. Taken together, in Ms. Eolis’ view, these obstacles suggest “the deal is in grave peril.”

Saying there was “no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” Brown had proposed a last-minute compromise that would have killed DC Lottery’s online gambling contract with tech provider Intralot but leave the legislation in place. Brown floated the idea at a pre-vote breakfast meeting with the rest of Council, but his suggestion was met by angry remarks from member David Catania. The Washington Examiner reported Catania rubbishing Brown’s attempt at peacemaking as “the biggest piece of garbage” he’d ever seen. Brown fought back by claiming that “the public had spoken” in favor of the bill at numerous public meetings held last fall, something Brown suggested Catania would have known had he bothered to attend. Catania retorted that he didn’t show at any of the meetings “because I’m not obsessed with i-gaming!” From there, the ‘debate’ reportedly devolved into the kind of uncouth vocabulary more suited for Oval Office tapes released long after a president’s death.

Intralot spokesman Byron Boothe told the Washington Times that the company was “disappointed” by Council’s vote. Nonetheless, Boothe claimed Intralot was looking forward to “assisting the DC lottery as they move forward in exploring their space in today’s ever-changing gaming world.” That is, if Council’s next decision isn’t to re-bid the entire lottery contract. Council member Jack Evans, who sponsored the repeal legislation, said he wasn’t “doing anything right now, but I’d always be open to [rebidding the contract].”

While many of the Council members claimed they were only repealing the law because they wanted to go through the whole process all over again with no behind the scenes malarkey, Brown suggested future attempts at passing legislation were doomed. Lacking the full rights of self-determination afforded ‘real’ states, all DC’s legislation must be approved by Congress. Federal legislators failed to voice any objection to DC’s online gambling plans last April, but with Congress now considering its own federal online poker laws heavily backed by what Brown obliquely referred to as “casino interests,” Brown told WAMU-FM that DC’s intra-district proposal will “never get past Congress again.”

As if on cue, the list of witnesses scheduled to testify at Thursday’s Senate Committee on Indian Affairs oversight hearing into online gambling has been revealed. Panel #1 will feature testimony from Robert Odawi Porter, president of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Appearing on Panel #2 will be Kevin K. Washburn, dean of law at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; Professor Alex Skibine from the University of Utah college of law; and I. Nelson Rose, senior professor at Whittier Law School in Encino, CA (and CalvinAyre.com contributor). Panel #3 will hear from Poker Players Alliance litigation support director Patrick Fleming, and Phoenix attorney Glenn Feldman, of Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander.

A report by The Washington Post states several council members have raised concerns that online gambling was legalised last year but the program was never implemented. So far, eight of the 12 council members are up for repealing online gambling, but it’s not all bad. Many of those admit they are open to the concept if it’s introduced again as a standalone bill.

Hawaii’s gambling opponent – university professor John Kindt – has voiced his opinions on anti-wagering in the state, taking his views to the capital. Backed by Honolulu’s police and mayor, HawaiiNewsNow reported he made a statement at the State Capital Rotunda saying how he wants the legalising of online gambling kept out of the state.

“Gambling is a lose-lose in particular for Hawaii because it’s an island economy,” he said. “There’s nowhere for the gambling to go except internally in raiding the public coffers and raiding the local populace.”

However, Sen. Malama Solomon has her head screwed on, and disagrees with Kindt. She said she supports some gambling as it could generate up to $600 million in annual revenue and help fund Native Hawaiian programs and create jobs.

“We can start to really look at increasing our revenues to be able to support the kind of services that are demanded by our residents as well as lower their tax burden,” she said.

As reported yesterday the vote for two bills – one which would allow Atlantic City punters to bet from remote gambling locations using mobile devices, and the other which would offer multimillion-dollar tax breaks for nongaming development – went ahead last night.

As a result of the meeting, both bills cleared the state Senate and will now go to the full Senate for a vote.

Attorney Joseph Tyrell, who represents the Casino Association of New Jersey, said: “This is an exciting area we need to address, and New Jersey can be the forefront.”

Lawmakers also approved several amendments to the original bills, including one which would give the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority the right to regulate noise in the Tourism District.

PPA’s Executive Director, John Pappas, said in a statement to Poker site PoketFives that “Governor Romney’s statement seems to be based on a misperception of regulation and the status quo.”

With Romney recently winning the Nevada’s vote by a 70% landslide – heading Republican runner Newt Gingrich (23%), who is also opposed to online gambling, and poker player favourite Texas Congressman Ron Paul (19%) - he has now become Republican challenger for President Barack Obama in the November election (much to the dread of gamblers hoping to see the legalising of online wagering). Unfortunately for poker players, the results demonstrate it’s quite unlikely the industry’s champion, Ron Paul, could get the vote – it would make more sense for voters to stick with poker-neutral Democrat Obama.

Nevertheless, PPA Executive Vice President of Player Relations, Rich Muny, further supported the group’s argument that Romney isn’t fit for the job, stating: “I believe Romney has it wrong here. Licensing and regulation will ensure that age verification measures are implemented, consumer protections are provided, and protections for those with excessive gaming habits are mandated. Current law does not provide any protections for anyone.”

As a result, the PPA has now insisted poker players make use of their Twitter and Facebook accounts and make their issues known to U.S. presidential candidates Romney and Santorum. Will you be using social media to make your voice be heard?

The two bills are updates of last year’s historic casino deregulation and Tourism District legislation, with new elements, such as that of mobile gaming.

Sponsor of both bills, Sen. Jim Whelan, who also chairs the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee, will be heading the discussion today in what he describes as an attempt to interest younger gamblers. He said: “They play computer games, and so on, and they text and they Facebook on their iPads and their smartphones, and so forth, and so I think it makes sense to recognize what was not even thought of 30 years ago and is now a reality.”

The report maintains that discussions with regulators in the past have made him confident such devices could be kept out of reach of underage players. He added that though it would free gamblers from the casino floor – it’s still a long way from real, full-blown internet gambling, which remains illegal in the state of New Jersey.  “You step off the premises and this thing goes kaput,” he added. Instead, what the bills would allow is wireless play limited to gamblers with established accounts, playing approved games inside the casino property on regulator-approved devices.

The lobbying arm of the resort’s casinos – The Casino Association of New Jersey – is in support of it, with association President, Bob Griffin, stating: “This innovation would provide an additional amenity to help Atlantic City further distinguish itself as the East Coast’s premier gaming destination.” Whelan said this was a long-standing request from the Greater Atlantic City Regional Chamber.

If passed, will the bills pave the way to legal internet gambling in Atlantic City, or even the state of New Jersey? If not, will they at least help it get back on track against the big boys?

According to Reuters, the House of Representatives’ sponsor of the bill, which sort to allow up to three resort casino developments in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, today conceded that it won’t be resurrected until at least 2013.

As we reported yesterday, the constitutional amendment had split the House and Senate at a meeting on Wednesday after its sponsor, Republican Erik Fresen, released a 146-page rewritten version to sway votes his way. Even so, a unanimous decision looked increasingly unlikely as two committee members: Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, and Rep. Joseph Abruzzo, R-Wellington, had already said were “no” votes. Well, it seems today’s outcome confirmed its possible defeat, with Fresen asking that it be withdrawn from consideration. As the committee last scheduled meeting of the session – that means Floridians can kiss goodbye to new casinos in the state, until next year, perhaps.

After being warned that this would be the case, Fresen said he understood but still wanted to withdraw the bill “in order that the issue not be further lost in the outcome and to continue the conversation outside of the hyperbole.”
Was this the right decision for Fresen to take? It may give him more time to prepare the bill for next year’s session but by that time will it be too late?

Give us your opinions…

Alderney already has MOU’s in place with regulators in Denmark, Nevada and Kahnawake and said the latest deal has been made in part so that they can help the province to develop an online gaming solution. Ontario will open its online gaming site later this year and the AGCC said that it’s become involved so the “hold standard” social responsibility standards are met and players are protected.

The regulator is still the subject of an external review after their woeful handling of the Full Tilt Poker debacle. It led to them being criticized and many questioning whether they should keep licences with the regulator. What the agreement will bring is the chance to do things that are little bit better than British Colombia – which frankly wouldn’t be too hard. If the BCLC had got a hold of a good European company or regulator to help them along the way then maybe they wouldn’t have ended up in such a pickle in the first place. Ontario shouldn’t have the same problems and the deal looks a good fit on both sides of the table.

Orlando Sentinel reports confusion intensifies as state representatives have had to make changes to their constitutional amendments in order to win votes. For example, Rep. Erik Fresen, R-Miami, released a 146-page rewritten version of his destination casino bill that bans internet cafes and lowers pari-mutuel tax rates. It would also lower racino tax rates from 35% to 10% once a destination casino opens. However, it would not grant casino licenses until 2017 – four years more than the original timeline which had the commission awarding licenses in 2013.

Fresen said the changes were crucial in order to gain him extra votes in the bill’s first committee hearing on Friday. “The upgrades were all for the most part driven by me based on conversations with the different committee members,” he said. “But the basic core of the bill is still there.”

Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, also had to make changes to her bill in an attempt to gain popularity. Although, her version allows pari-mutuel facilities to become full blown casinos if destination resorts open in their counties.

They can’t be too pissed, though. As Orlando Sentinel reports, both lawmakers acknowledged quite some time ago that they would have to make changes to accommodate their respective chambers’ membership and  try to meet in the middle.

How the bill will go down on Friday is still anyone’s guess. Representatives from Genting and Las Vegas Sands said they are still reviewing the legislation, while two committee members: Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, and Rep. Joseph Abruzzo, R-Wellington, have already said are “no” votes.

Which way do you think it will swing for South Florida?

If you believe the Council members who voted to kill iGamingDC, the momentum behind Wednesday’s vote to repeal stemmed from (a) the process by which the online gambling legislation was passed, and (b) how Greek company Intralot won the right to provide iGamingDC’s back end. Council member Michael A. Brown inserted the gambling language into a DC budget bill in December 2010, which Council duly voted to approve without much comment. The DC Lottery vendor contract was amended by DC CFO Natwar Gandhi (after it was awarded to Intralot) to change a provision describing the offering of “non-traditional games” to specifically state online gambling.

Council member Brown (who, along with Marion Barry, voted against the repeal) rejected Council members’ claims that he “snuck” his online gambling legislation past their noses. “You can’t ‘sneak’ an amendment into the budget … To what degree [other Council members) knew or vetted it, I can’t say.” Brown and Barry maintain that the Committee’s vote went “against the will of the people,” and Brown suggested other states would be “laughing at our procedure now, moving backwards when we were out in front on this … this was going to be our thing, run by our government, regulated by us.”

The day before the Committee vote, Brown noted that the series of public meetings the anti-gambling contingent had demanded last fall had demonstrated strong support for iGamingDC. “The community is for it, it’s already the law, it’s had the most exhausting process possible. It does make you wonder what the issue is.” Following Wednesday’s vote, Brown blamed unspecified “casino interests” with a preference for federal online poker legislation as the real killers of DC’s online gambling plans. With the (presumably Nevada) casino bosses’ dirty work done, Brown says online gambling “will be federalized, and [DC] won’t get any of the revenue.” Should the repeal bill be approved, Brown intends to re-introduce his gambling legislation “as soon as possible,” possibly with a payback-is-a-bitch provision to block “casino interests” from sharing in the potential iGaming wealth.

Following the vote, Intralot VP for governmental affairs Byron Boothe said DC Council had “dropped the baton.” DC Lottery exec director Buddy Roogow offered up an early candidate for understatement of the year by summing up Intralot’s reaction to Wednesday’s development: “Obviously, they’re not happy about it.” Intralot has spent an estimated $5m preparing the iGamingDC system, for which they’re now on the hook. DC officials told the Washington Post that because the iGaming portion of the DC Lottery contract hadn’t yet been executed, DC has no legal exposure. Intralot’s Boothe called that a “matter of interpretation,” raising the possibility of Intralot seeking legal remedies to recoup its outlay. Any sum owed to Intralot would come on top of the $13m in iGamingDC revenue that DC will now not collect over the next three years. All in all, a good day’s work for DC Council’s grandstanding anti-gambling scolds.

In dismissing the suit, Sand described the plaintiffs’ racketeering claims as “too attenuated” to warrant going forward. Sand said it “remains unclear” whether the plaintiffs’ injuries were (as the players suggested) the result of FTP principals deciding to halt withdrawals, or whether the US Department of Justice shared some of the blame for tossing a hand grenade into FTP’s bank accounts on Black Friday.

But while the FTP pros may be off the hook and the RICO claims against the corporate defendants were dismissed, Sand allowed conversion claims to proceed against FTP corporate offshoots Pocket Kings, Vantage and Filco. In Sand’s words: “The fact that the three defendants worked together to maintain the Full Tilt website makes it plausible to infer that they also worked together to block Plaintiffs’ access to the money in their accounts.” Sands also granted the plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint to include conversion claims against Tiltware and Pocket Kings Consulting.

Jeff Ifrah, whose Ifrah Law firm represented the FTP companies and pros in the suit, issued a press release trumpeting the victory, suggesting it would affect other pending class action suits against the individual defendants. “The Court’s decision recognizes that relief for the players is being pursued by the United States. There is no compelling basis to open additional doors for private class action lawyers to purse that very same relief.”

In related news, Chris Ferguson is reportedly close to reaching some kind of settlement with the DoJ regarding his role in the FTP debacle. Ferguson’s attorney Ian Imrich told CardPlayer.com that his client was having “very positive dialogue” with DoJ officials, and hoped to have the matter resolved early this year. Imrich also said that “based on what Chris and I are hearing,” the rumored deal for Groupe Bernard Tapie (GBT) to acquire the FTP assets forfeited to the DoJ should be concluded by “the first half, if not the first quarter, of this year.”

Imrich rejected claims made last week in a Subject: Poker article that Ferguson was threatening to hold up the GBT/DoJ deal unless he was repaid $14.3m that FTP allegedly used to pay its bills. Imrich said the Subject: Poker article contained “numerous erroneous comments and contentions,” and that Ferguson was only seeking an accounting request from FTP CEO Ray Bitar. “Chris’ request has nothing to do with [the GBT/DoJ deal], which my guy supports.”

The accusations occurred after a report by the Lexington Herald-Leader raised questions about whether Thayer should disclose the clients he works for in the horse industry as a marketing and communications consultant.

According to Courier-Journal, during  a news conference, Beshear, said: “I certainly thought that that was a cheap shot that was taken this morning in the newspapers about Sen. Thayer. He’s a fellow of integrity, and he is doing what he thinks is right in sponsoring this amendment to let people vote on it.”

Beshear continued, highlighting that legislators in Kentucky are part-time and infact have other jobs besides their roles – hence Thayer’s situation is not unique.

“We have teachers. We’ve got people that work for universities,” he said. “They vote on the budgets. They have to vote on things that affect the commonwealth generally. And that’s the same thing as this amendment is.”

“I think it’s certainly further evidence of intimidation by Sen. Williams and others who are against this amendment. I think it’s very clear that that’s the case. But Sen. Thayer is going to persevere,” he added.

So how did Williams react to this? Well, through his spokeswoman, of course – who released a statement yesterday evening stating that Williams believes Beshear is making the process too personal.

The amendment proposal will be released “in the next few days”, the governor said.

A recent report by ArgusLeader has revealed that Schumacher  told the Legislature’s General Affairs Committee yesterday that his measure would also help Nebraska cover the cost of education programs and roads. However, the idea doesn’t look too promising. Not only have Nebraskans rejected plenty of gambling proposals in the past ten years, but yesterday, gambling opponents argued his measure was merely a ploy to blackmail border states and outwit past voters.

If – by some miracle – the amendment proposal is passed, it wouldn’t only give the Legislature the authority to legalise casino gambling in the state, but it would allow Nebraska to build casinos within 60 miles of a border state. That’s unless the border state agreed to share some of the tax revenue.

Nevertheless, lawmakers have yet to take an action on the proposal. The question is: will they ever?

Over in Connecticut, similar debates on the legalising and regulating of internet gambling are taking place, with the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling urging lawmakers to be “cautious” in their decisions.

A report by TheDay states the council’s executive director, Marvin Steinberg, told the General Assembly’s Finance Committee that “the convenience and anonymity of online gambling, coupled with the absence of social cues, makes it a particularly dangerous form of gambling”.

Apparently, the agency is neither endorsing nor opposing Internet gambling, but wants legislators to understand the potential ramifications of expanding it. However, we can’t forget how Gov. Dannel Malloy expressed a view earlier this month that widespread online gambling is now inevitable in the state due to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Christmas present, adding that Connecticut should be ready. Is it ready?