A new California on the web poker bill, sponsored by State Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), happens to be on the table to oppose the bill introduced by fellow State Assemblyman Mike Gatto in December.

The Sawyer-Jones bill, AB 167, seeks to determine ‚a proper regulatory structure in place that provides safe and compliant internet poker access,‘ the assemblyman announced yesterday.

So how do the two bills that are new? And more to the level, how can the new Jones-Sawyer bill compare with his past bill, AB2291, which foundered on the rocks of final year’s legislative session?

No Bad Actors

Jones-Sawyer said at the end of the 2014 session that a new, revised bill would be a high priority for 2015, and indicated that this time, the ‚bad actor‘ language would be softened. The non-severable actor that is bad of AB229 proved to be a sticking point for stakeholders, and caused a major schism between those who wanted PokerStars in industry and the ones who didn’t.

As expected, AB 167 seems to have removed those actor that is bad, apparently clearing the way for PokerStars to enter a regulated California market. Those precluded from applying for a internet poker license, states the bill, consist of:

‚The individual [who] has contemptuously defied an investigative that is legislative, or other official investigative body of a state or of the united states of america or an international jurisdiction, when that body is engaged into the investigation of crimes relating to poker, official corruption associated to poker activities, or criminal profiteering activity or organized crime, as defined in part l 86.2 of the Penal Code.‘

The bill continues on to clarify a position that is key could directly affect PokerStars potential entry into the Golden State market, given its previously vilified owners vs. its new, ‚clean slate‘ ones.

‚ The person [who] has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony consisting of either having accepted a bet over the Internet in violation of United States or California law, or having abetted or aided that unlawful task.‘

Note the employment of this word ‚person,‘ which suggests that PokerStars, by divesting itself of its previous owners, against whom there were outstanding DOJ indictments, would have the ability to be involved in the California on line market unscathed.

Anti-PokerStars Coalition Denounces Language

The language is in sharp contrast with that of final year’s bill from Jones-Sawyer, which proposed to exclude ‚any brand name or business name, including any brand that is derivative with the exact same or similar wording, or any trade or service mark, software, technology, functional system, customer information, or other data acquired, derived, or developed directly or indirectly from any operation that has accepted a bet or engaged in a financial transaction associated with such bet from any individual in the us on any type of online video gaming after December 31, 2006.‘

If Jones-Sawyer believes his bill will sail through with the backing of this stakeholders, however, he has another think coming, as the anti-PokerStars coalition that is tribal no time in denouncing this language.

‚There is much for tribes to dislike concerning this bill,‘ said Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro. ‚we have been disappointed that the bill disregards important principles from a broad coalition of respected tribes and card rooms that help prevent corporations and entities that previously violated federal law from profiting from tainted software, brands, and databases derived from illegal activity.‘

Photo Finish for Racetracks and Liquidity

Other news that is major AB 167 may be the inclusion of California racetracks in a post-regulation landscape, which many felt had been unjustly ignored by past bills. The sharing of liquidity with other states, expressly forbidden in preceding draft bills, appears to be on the menu this time, and there’s additionally a suggestion that players on unlicensed sites could be prosecuted.

The license fee would cost $10 million, by having a tax-rate set at 8.5 percent of gross gaming revenue. As soon as language has been agreed upon, the bill will require two-thirds of this vote to pass.