Tribal Gaming Operators Unhappy with Current Internet Poker Proposal in HouseChairman of the National Indian Gaming Association: Joe Barton’s bill 'violates the core principals of tribes.' |
|
A panel of some of tribal gaming’s leading experts gathered in front of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Thursday to discuss Internet gaming and its implications for Indian casinos.
Larry Roberts, general counsel for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), began the hearing by saying that the Commission has not been named as a possible regulator in any legislation involving Internet poker.
The Commission, which operates under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), has not taken any stance on online gaming. In 1988, the IGRA established a framework for operating and regulating gaming in order to provide economic vitality and development to tribes.
Ernie Stevens, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association, said the the NIGC would be the “only logical entity to regulate Internet gaming for tribes.”
Stevens said that Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) bill “violates the core principals of tribes” to act as their own governments and decide upon appropriate taxation measures.
Bruce Bozsum, chairman of Connecticut’s Mohegan Tribe, said that any potential Federal legislation must protect the gains that tribes have made under the IGRA. “Governments don’t tax governments,” he said.
He stressed the point that Nevada and New Jersey-based companies should not get a “head start” in offering a web product, under the “guise of consumer protection.”
“If commercial businesses do it first, we will never catch up,” Bozsum said.
The Mohegan Tribe only wants online gaming in the form of poker and is prepared for either interstate or intrastate systems, according to Bozsum.
Completely against the proposals for Internet gaming was Glen Gobin, chairman of the Washington-based Tulalip Tribes. Gobin sees the online version of casino games as a threat to the $25 billion annual spending attributed to tribal gaming.
Like Stevens and Bozsum, Gobin’s opinion is that pending Federal legislation ignores Indian sovereignty and doesn’t provide its leaders “a seat at the table” in discussing how the industry would take shape.
He also expressed concern that many tribes lack the brand-name recognition of some of the major commercial casinos and the infrastructure needed to run an Internet gaming site.
Alfonse D’Amato, chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, in his testimony tried to adjust the conversation into one about poker specifically, and not full-scale gaming.
According to the former Senator, one percent of revenue from Indian casinos come from poker tables. He said that online poker would not cause revenue losses.
D’Amato agreed with the notion that was echoed throughout the hearing: If tribes formed “network” partnerships they could compete with any commercial gaming company. D’Amato described the pooling of players as a “cross-pollination.”
He agreed with tribal representatives that the groups should keep their sovereign rights and not be forced to renegotiate their existing compacts in order to offer Internet poker.
Future hearings will be held regarding the points raised during the two-hour discussion, according to Committee Chairman Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI).
“The whole reason for this is to come to legislation that will be in the best interests of all concerned,” Akaka said.
Follow Brian Pempus on Twitter — @brianpempus
Copyright © 2001-2024
CardPlayer.com. All rights reserved.
