Key Takeaways
- Yesterday’ California hearing heard evidence from six panels. The witness list was well crafted to give proponents and opponents of online poker the opportunity to state their case, and provided subject matter experts whom the politicians could quiz as to the capability of California to regulate online poker.
- The make-up of the witness list gave all interested parties a chance to air their views. Inevitably, this also gave the State Assembly’s Governmental Organization Committee full awareness of the divisions which remain among the supporters of online poker.
- On the positive side, the hearing was genuinely democratic, unlike the one-sided farce of the US House of Representatives hearing on the Restoration of the Wire Act which was held in March.
- The scale of the disputes between the various parties means that 2015 and maybe even 2016 are unlikely to see a resolution—even when it is clear that there is political support for some form of state regulation.
Yesterday’ California hearing heard evidence from six panels. The witness list was well crafted to give proponents and opponents of online poker the opportunity to state their case, and provide subject matter experts whom the politicians could quiz as to the capability of California to regulate online poker.
The make-up of the witness list gave all interested parties a chance to air their views. Inevitably, this also gave the State Assembly’s Governmental Organization Committee full awareness of the divisions which remain among the supporters of online poker.
