What was trumpeted as the latest and best attempt to persuade a state legislature towards passing online gaming and/or poker regulations took place in Albany, NY, yesterday. The hearing by the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee in the state capitol wasn’t widely attended, however, by neither the constituents nor the legislators that the hearing was to educate.
New York, considered by many a marketplace that would serve as a catapult for other states to move forward with their own online gaming and/or poker regulation like California, instead looked as if there was little more than lip service being paid to the industry. The sponsor of online poker only legislation in the New York Senate, Senator John Bonacic, was joined by two other members of the 11 person committee and those two other members would leave before the completion of testimony.
There was plenty of testimony potentially supporting an online poker only system in the Empire State, it was just too bad that no one other than Bonacic was there to hear it. The Poker Players Alliance’s John Pappas was one of the first witnesses who testified on the record, stating that regulation of the industry was the way to go and not banning. “Establishing a regulatory regime for online poker in New York…(should) keep consumer interest at the forefront,” Pappas commented. Perhaps noting that the three states where online poker already exists – Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey – are having difficulties running on their own, Pappas also stated, “It is also vitally important for New York to establish a system that allows for it to share players with other regulated jurisdictions.”
Several of the potential providers of online poker to New Yorkers also were quite supportive of Bonacic’s legislative efforts. Three representatives from the casino industry, David Satz of Caesars Entertainment, Tom Ballance of the Borgata and John McManus of MGM Resorts, offered their expertise, with McManus saying “in our view, online gaming doesn’t cannibalize existing gaming, but it does grow the market.” Ballance pointed out that New York officials might be losing out on more revenues by pushing for the online poker only market rather than the full online casino gaming experience. “Poker is one form of skill-based gaming; there are others,” Ballance testified. “It is critically important to monetize that customer base.”
The “wet blanket” at the hearing was provided by a New York gaming official. According to New York Gaming Association president James Featherstonhaugh, there isn’t the stomach to pushing for online gaming and/or poker regulation at this time as the New York State Assembly just passed legislation expanding “brick and mortar” gaming in the state. There are three new casinos under construction that Featherstonhaugh said needed to get “up and running” so that the legislature could adequately assess the situation. No time frame was suggested for this waiting period except for the general “several years.”
As it was Bonacic’s hearing, there was no one on the panel that spoke for the “anti” gaming advocates in New York. Bonacic approved the lineup for the discussion and, although two organizations requested a seat at the hearing, Bonacic denied them that right. This was quite similar to U. S. Representative Jason Chaffetz’s hearing regarding his bill, “The Restoration of America’s Wire Act of 1961” (or RAWA), in the U. S. House of Representatives, where Chaffetz locked out any pro-online gaming speakers until widespread condemnation from even members of his own party forced him to add one speaker for online gaming regulation.
The hearing – and its apparent lack of interest from even members of the committee itself – was one of those exercises that the political process forces for consideration of a bill. There was no vote taken on Bonacic’s bill and there wasn’t any further discussion scheduled for the near future. Those looking for New York to become the fourth state in the U. S. to have online gaming and/or poker will be waiting quite some time – at least until it becomes something important to the legislators themselves.
