California is the home to 107 federally recognized Indian tribes, and the authorization of intrastate online gaming is a policy issue that has generated some disagreement among some of us in Indian country. But the disagreement is not about the issue of legalizing Internet poker itself, but rather about the unintended consequences of sloppy legislation and the appropriate way to head into the online gaming future.
Last year, online poker legislation stalled, and we were opposed to a bill like Senate Bill 40 because it was not open and fair, nor did it do enough to protect tribal sovereignty, existing gaming compacts and tribal economies.
For the record, California Tribal Business Alliance does not oppose the legalization of Internet poker. But we do believe it is critical for the California Legislature to exercise its due diligence and consult with tribal governments before moving forward with a policy that will significantly alter the gaming landscape in California, as well as impact agreements among tribal, state and local governments.
Although a recent Field Poll showed generic and narrow support for online poker, it did so in somewhat of a vacuum. For example, as written last year, SB 40 would have legalized online poker in a way that would have created a monopoly for one specific consortium, the California Online Poker Association. Undoubtedly, this was something of which few of the Californians surveyed were aware and would likely have impacted their support. The Field Poll also didn't ask Californians if they would support online poker if they knew it would undermine tribal sovereignty, exclusivity or existing tribal-state gaming compacts.
I think we can all agree that any legalization of Internet poker must be methodical, fair, in the best interests of the state and provide adequate time for the regulatory structure to be implemented with stringent safeguards to protect the integrity of gaming.
However, CTBA would oppose any legislation that does not properly and adequately address concerns regarding tribal sovereignty, the breach of existing compacts, taxation and regulation, to name a few.
We understand that in these tough budget times, the allure of online poker tax revenue must be hard to resist. But tribal governments did not create the state's budget chaos, and it is fiscally imprudent and unfair to place tribal governments at risk by rushing through legislation when there are so many unanswered questions and potential unintended consequences.
The California Tribal Business Alliance believes the following principles must be adhered to for any online gaming legislation at the state or federal level. The legislation must:
• Not compromise the inherent rights of tribal governments, modify the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or undermine existing tribal-state gaming compacts.
• Allow tribes to accept wagers from persons not on Indian lands.
• Not limit tribal participation via targeted restrictions. In other words, not create a monopoly.
• Be limited to Internet poker.
• Not allow play at Internet cafes.
• Not allow players to withdraw winnings at brick-and-mortar casinos.
• Use regulatory standards comparable to those required of Indian gaming.
• Not allow foreign companies, their principals and contractors that violated the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to participate in any authorized Internet-gaming system.
• Not impose a tax on Indian gaming.
• Not violate the federal Wire Act of 1961, which prohibits certain types of betting and wagering businesses.
• Be based on realistic assumptions, including true costs and the length of time it will take to implement a regulatory regime and employ qualified regulatory personnel.
We were glad to see that the Legislature and the governor did not rush through legislation at the end of the last legislative session and look forward to working with all interested parties to arrive at an agreeable consensus.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/19/4065998/legislature-should-consult-tribes.html#ixzz1eGgAI6Ki