Not content with the two bills that have already appeared in the legislature, another Pennsylvania lawmaker has introduced her own bill for the regulation of online poker, albeit with slight differences from her predecessors.
Pennsylvania State Representative Tina Davis introduced her bill, HB 920, which would look to regulate online gaming and poker in the Keystone State. Davis’ version of the bill has some elements that may make some less-than excited to adopt, however. Only casinos that are licensed for action in Pennsylvania would be eligible to receive an iGaming license, but it would only be for a year at a $5 million. If the casinos wanted to continue with their online gaming and poker license after that year period, they could renew for a three year time span at $500,000 per year.
Davis has also added some other caveats to her bill to separate it from the two already introduced. Much like in one of the California versions of regulation, Davis’ bill would require players who wish to participate in the Pennsylvania online gaming and poker scene to sign up for their accounts at physical casino locations in the state. The taxation rate would be a bit steep under Davis’ regulations, calling for a 28% tax on daily gross gaming revenues that would be used for tax relief, transit services for the elderly and the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Fund.
Davis has held strong opinions regarding regulation of the Pennsylvania industry previously, introducing a bill almost exactly the same as HB 920 last year. “Considering efforts across the country to legalize internet gaming, it is imperative that we maintain the integrity of our gaming industry amid inevitable federal preemption and competing states,” Davis stated when she introduced that bill to the Pennsylvania House last year. “A responsible internet gaming system must be created in order to protect Pennsylvanians and the success of the established gaming industry in the Commonwealth.”
Earlier this year, State Representative John Payne introduced HB 649, a bill that originally would have amended the state’s Gaming Act to allow for online poker only. Since the introduction of his bill, Payne has made several amendments to the bill, including making it an all-inclusive online casino and poker gaming bill, the licensing of “significant vendors” (re: gaming software providers) and preventing ‘internet cafes’ from springing up to offer gaming, among other things.
Following the introduction of Payne’s bill, State Representative Nick Miccarelli introduced his bill, HB 695, which had some of the attributes of Payne’s original bill. It contained the online poker only language (and still does) while also including a ‘bad actor’ clause that would prevent any company that operated in the United States following December 31, 2006, from obtaining a license to operate in the state.
The three options for regulation provide something for everyone in the General Assembly to consider. Being first is normally the best option and, as such, most in the Pennsylvania gaming industry believe that Payne’s HB 649 has the best opportunity for passage. As Payne is the chairman of the House Gaming Oversight Committee, he has the power to put his bill on the ‘fast track’ towards a vote in the House. Although Davis has her own bill on the table, she is also a co-sponsor of the Payne bill and could shift towards supporting Payne’s efforts.
The trio of bills come to light as Pennsylvania looks to pass California is seriously looking at passing legislation in 2015 for online gaming and/or poker regulation. A public hearing is scheduled for next week by the House Gaming Oversight Committee regarding internet gaming and, in May, a second hearing will be held by the same body on the same issue. The number of bills – as well as the receptive discussion by legislators regarding the subject – have many industry professionals hoping that Pennsylvania may become the next state to regulate online gaming and poker.