Posted by Editor | Filed under Poker and the Law
In an Open Letter to the Commerce Casino posted today on Players Before Profits, numerous influential poker players called out the Commerce for its hypocritical testimony before the US House of Representatives in opposition to federal regulation of online poker. I signed the Open Letter and, though I am used to casinos opposing online poker, the testimony by Commerce Vice Chairman Tom Malkasian reached a new level of duplicity.
The Open Letter was made public today to spotlight how the Commerce Casino, an institution largely supported by proponents of federal online poker regulation, has opposed such regulation in order to get a state monopoly on the intrastate online poker market. As the Open Letter states, “Poker players hate hypocrisy. So, we are particularly dismayed that while your testimony before the House Financial Services Committee criticized federal legislation and regulation of online poker, Commerce Casino is actively promoting legislation to create a segregated, California-only online poker network. That proposal would create a monopoly that would harm California’s poker players by severely limiting the pool of players against whom they could play as well as the options for sites on which they could play. It could also set the stage for other states to follow suit, possibly resulting in a balkanized online poker world, where players across the nation would be limited in their choices of where and against whom they could play.”
The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (HR 2267) is slowly making its way towards establishing federal regulation and licensing of online poker sites. Proposed by Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House of Financial Services Committee, over a year ago, it was subsequently co-sponsored by 70 other members of the House. At the end of July, it passed out of committee with bipartisan support, 41-22. Shortly before it passed out of committee, Malkasian testified against it.
The days of land-based casinos opposing online poker on competitive grounds have largely passed. The popularity of online poker over the past several years has created an avalanche of new players for all major casinos, the Commerce included. But the Commerce has a sneakier agenda. They want to get into the online poker business, and they want to do it in a way that gives them a monopoly over California players.
In August 2009, the Commerce, the Bicycle Casino, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, formed a limited liability corporation named the “California Tribal Intrastate Internet Poker Consortium LLC.” The goal of the Consortium was to get California to pass a law legalizing online poker, but only if played solely with other California residents, and only through a network operated by one licensee – the Consortium.
Just about everyone involved in the online poker debate is at least arguably a partisan – including me, writing this in The Full Tilt Poker Blog. Therefore, it’s important to evaluate what best serves the interests of poker players, regardless of whose mouth from which it originates.
I think the following two statements fairly represent what poker players want: (1) open competition and opportunities to play; and (2) competition and opportunities to play should be limited only to the extent necessary to assure honest poker and poker-related transactions. (I recognize that revenue collection and protection of minors and problem-gamblers are politically necessary.)
Limits on competition and opportunities to play, however, were just what the Commerce group had in mind. According to the August 13, 2009 Capitol Weekly, Allison Harvey, Executive Director of the California Tribal Business Alliance, instantly noted the Consortium’s anti-competitive goal. “How can you just say these groups and nobody else can get into this business?”
Cheryl Schmit, with tribal gaming watchdog group Stand Up for California, said in the same publication, “They’re setting themselves up to be the consortium in control of this branch of Internet gambling. If you want to participate, you’ve gotta go to them. They must be thinking they’re going to make more money out of this project than their casino slot machines. They may be right.”
Fortunately, the Commerce Monopoly Plan never got off the ground. But it wasn’t for lack of effort. The Consortium succeeded in lining up support from Roderick Wright, Chairman of the California’s Senate Governmental Organization Committee. The Committee held hearings in February but the Consortium never got its bill proposed. Senator Wright is currently proposing a bill that would allow three California-only online poker licenses. But the Commerce doesn’t like to share: it is currently opposing that bill.
I wouldn’t have expected Tom Malkasian to go before Representative Frank and say, “We oppose federal regulation because we want a monopoly for ourselves.” I was, however, surprised that he cloaked his objections under “consumer protection.”
At one point Malkasian compared online poker sites with drug lords. “If Congress were ever to decide to legalize marijuana, certainly no one would suggest that the first federal permits to sell it should go to the Tijuana drug cartel since they have the most money and experience in marketing and distributing the product. Yet illegal foreign gaming interests are suggesting just that for Internet gaming, lobbying hard in DC to ensure that HR2267 is not modified to exclude them based on their past misdeeds.”
I can’t speak for the other online poker sites, and I don’t know everything about everybody connected with Full Tilt. But I’m willing to bet that Full Tilt doesn’t have a House of Death where it tortures and executes suspected rivals and informants.
I may be a partisan on these things but I think what is best for online poker players is to have a regulatory system that allows as many operators and players as possible, consistent with operating a fair poker game.
I’m not going to encourage you to sign the Open Letter. Make the decision on your own. But I encourage you to go to Players Before Profits and look at it. Figure out what YOU think is best for poker players.
Popularity: 16% [?]
(10 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...29 Responses to “An Open Letter to the Commerce Casino – Why I Signed – #1137”
-
chainpoker12 Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pmi agree fully with what i seem to understand!!!
-
Debi Miller Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pmRight on!!!!!! You said it all there…keep up the watchdog for us poker players and thank you.
-
scott diamond Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pmMichael,
Just wanted you to know the Bike has changed their position on this but youmay already know this. Also I have a new foundation http://www.FallenHeroesUSA.org and Full Tilt is supporting me with product and this cause. I am very fortunate to have them follow me with this new endeavor.I need to raise some money if you know anyone who might be partial to this cause please have them get in touch with us.
My next Poker Tourney is at the Bike feb 18th 2011 unless we get one sooner in Vegas!
Love your blogs by the way!
Scott Diamond
-
Raymond Foley Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 5:32 pmi think it should be up to us people on what we want poker online is great an fun thanks for letting me share
-
Ron E. Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 6:34 pmGreat post Michael. This has to be one of the biggest hypocrisies that I have ever read. On what grounds can they truly argue that they deserve to have exclusive rights over the entire state of California? I feel absolutely ridiculous to have ever played in that casino and I will never go back after reading this.
-
susan west Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 8:26 pmthats right-cupcake1010
-
Conan776 Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 10:08 pmIt’s bad enough the government won’t bust trusts up anymore, now corporations expect to be handed trusts on a silver platter.
Pathetic and un-American behavior by Commerce Casino.
-
Raul Says:
August 26th, 2010 at 11:21 pmIts weird how USA, the house of (among other things) poker and freedom is so conservative about online poker. Maybe it will be soon easier to play online poker in China. Wake up!
-
lcid86 Says:
August 27th, 2010 at 9:19 amThanks for the well-written update. I was wondering why Commerce would oppose online gaming. This was a very good explanation.
-
Montana Mike Says:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:32 pmAmazing how “limited” poker players thinking is – just amazing! Full Tilt/Poker Stars, etc. = BOTS are ok?
What ? Full Tilt does not want to lose “California customers”, possibly setting up a “priority” system where each state in the US may regulate poker according to the what their populace desires?
Why allow “unregulated” no “recourse” sites?
(cuz they are cutting you a check and “taking care” of you?)
-
Graeberite Says:
August 31st, 2010 at 11:38 pmSaw this on another forum and found it so profound that I had to share:
Considering that the Commerce is basically partners with Morongo Casino on their Internet Poker venture, interesting that they have remained silent on this issue. I’d love to be a fly on the wall during their California Intertribal Intrastate Poker Consortium. I wonder what the other 21 +- tribes have to say about this and if this will affect the alliance. FYI – Morongo has spent $80 million on their lobbying efforts. Considering there are only 3 Cali State Internet Poker licenses proposed in the Bill (1 cardroom, 1 tribal, one gaming entity), they were obviously trying to corral the market with all three (internet articles re Party Poker and Commerce). Competition is best for the players, and no one entity should have a corner on the market. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
-
DiscinFrog Says:
September 5th, 2010 at 1:07 pmvery well written.. appreciate it
-
Szabolcs Kiss Says:
September 5th, 2010 at 2:18 pmThanks for you…
-
Jugar Poker Says:
September 6th, 2010 at 2:43 amGood morning,
I love your blog and there are many reasons, why? Every morning when I wish to learn a thing or two about poker and casinos, online happenings, tournaments and tips and tricks, studying your blog, the first paragraph does this and I can safely say, where I stand now is because of your blog
Thank you
Anna
-
poker rakeback Says:
September 10th, 2010 at 5:47 amCmon, they’re just looking out for mr. no1, protecting their interests the best way they can. Apparently they’ve run out of all reasonable arguments so they’ve turned to hypocrisy. No surprises there. One thing’s certain though: if legal online poker ever becomes reality, none of the casinos will be able to complete with the big players. Apparently Google’s getting in on the action too.
-
poker Says:
September 11th, 2010 at 3:13 pmi love to play poker and your post realy means a lot to me.
-
Paul Belmonte Says:
September 16th, 2010 at 7:58 amMichael..
Nice post. Are you OK??? It seems unusual for you to go close to 3 weeks without posting something. You know you are the best poker writer around. Full Tilt is very fortunate to have someone of your caliber in their midst.
Looking forward to yoru return to the blogsphere..
Paul
-
Thomas Says:
September 18th, 2010 at 7:19 amIndeed @Icid86, this has been a nice eye-opener for all of us poker lovers. Thanks for sharing this, Craig!
-
Paul Says:
September 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pmWhere are you these days? We miss your insightful blogs..
-
poker king Says:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:57 pmGreat post! I think the whole opposition of online poker from our governments perspective is ridiculous. They just want to have their hands in everybody’s pockets 8 times over. Let the tax go. Let us be the free country that we are meant to be! Poker isn’t going anywhere.
-
organic Says:
October 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pmIts to control peoples spending habits, especially in a time of crisis
-
drunkagain Says:
October 1st, 2010 at 10:10 pmDid you get fired over this?
-
Poker Training Says:
October 6th, 2010 at 12:46 pmThis is such a difficult stance that the Commerce took. Imagine if they didnt have all of the online players in there? If everyone that plays online decided to not go to Commerce anymore, their poker room would definitely struggle!…Come on Commerce!
-
Poker Training Says:
October 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pmYea this has gotten out of hand…Glad they KIND OF came to their senses. The poker community is too strong in LA to have this negative publicity!
-
Learn Poker Says:
October 27th, 2010 at 2:31 pmIf you haven’t signed this petition, you should join in as well…
-
casino Says:
November 1st, 2010 at 6:42 ami will use this in mynext visit at poker rooms.
-
59Liszewski@gmail.com Says:
December 28th, 2010 at 9:40 amI come across this blog website a several days ago nonetheless totally didn’t remember to bookmark it – I will not make the similar mistake once again – it will go right inside my favourites.
-
online casino Says:
January 6th, 2011 at 2:53 ami like your bolg really have a lot of meaning we need to tell them
-
roulette Says:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:03 pmyes this is a serious topic for sure
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Last Place Pays Freeroll Shootouts
- Ted Forrest: I Wanted To Show That The Impossible Was Possible - #1109 - 2010 WSOP #90
- One Wants to Die ... - #1111 - 2010 WSOP #92
- #1023 - 2010 WSOP #4 - Seen and Heard at the Series #4 - Banned Forever
- Summary - The Ted Forrest-Mike Matusow Weight-Loss Prop Bet of 2010 - #1117 - 2010 WSOP #98
