For the second year in a row, the state of New York lost out on opportunity to pass legalized and regulated online poker law. Despite the fact that the state Senate approved John Bonacic’s S-3898 last week (54 – 8 in favor), the state legislature wrapped up for the year without taking any action on the bill. There were already signs that the bill would die from neglect this year after Assemblyman Gary Pretlow told the media earlier this week that he had seen “some opposition” to Bonacic’s bill coming up for a vote.
S-3898 would have allowed 11 licensees to partner with poker software groups and apply for online poker licenses. The license would allow these partnerships to offer online poker services to New Yorkers over the age of 21. The state would have made $110 million from the licenses, as well as a cut of the profits made by these operators.
One of Bonacic’s messages to opponents of the bill has always been that online poker and gambling exist anyway, and it was therefore better that the state tap into the revenue and create a safer, regulated gambling environment for state citizens.
“There’s illegal online gaming right now,” Bonacic said in an interview to NewsDay.com. “So why don’t we monitor it, tax it and make money for education?”
In recent weeks, the bill made headlines again after an amendment was introduced that would make it difficult for ‘bad actors’ (read: PokerStars) to enter a legalized online poker landscape in New York. The late amendment noted that stage gambling authorities would consider a number of factors about those applying for licenses which could affect their chances of receiving one, including those operators who “knowingly and willfully accepted or made available wagers on interactive gaming (including poker)” from residents of the United States after December 31, 2006 (when the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was introduced), or “knowingly facilitated or otherwise provided services” to anyone who did take such wagers.
The amendment even took things one step further by stating that the criteria even applied to those who had “purchased or acquired, directly or indirectly, in whole or insignificant part … a covered asset in connection with interactive gaming.” This language means that the gambling authorities could also deny the new owners of PokerStars (read: Amaya) a license, despite the fact that the sale took place after the introduction of the UIGEA.
