Many in the online gambling industry, including this writer, were excited to see the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (HR 2267) pass the House Financial Services Committee last week. The bill, drafted by Barney Frank and Ron Paul, would repeal UIGEA and regulate the online gambling industry in the United States. Though many were quick to celebrate, the objectivity of time allows us to look at the obstacles still in the way of that bill becoming a law.

The first obstacle is simply the calendar. This is the beginning of August, but Congress is currently in their summer recess, from which they won’t return until September. The November elections will ring in a new Congress, so the 111^th Congress only has a small window – little more than one month – to get things done.

Though HR 2267 has passed the House Financial Services Committee, it has yet to be placed on the legislative calendar for floor action. From there, it needs to have a floor debate. Generally, bills receive an unlimited floor debate, which means the members of Congress can argue about and discuss the bill until the session ends and nothing will happen with it. Also, anyone who is strongly opposed to the bill can filibuster and talk the bill to death. Since online gambling is such a controversial issue, I’m sure there is a representative or two who would love to do just that.

Congress can avoid a filibuster by invoking cloture, which limits the debate to 30 hours and then requires a vote. However, a bill requires a 3/5 vote rather than a 2/3 majority to be passed once cloture is invoked. Though the bill passed the committee by a 41-22-1 vote, it’s hard to say whether it has enough support in the general House to pass by a 3/5 margin.

Once the online gambling bill is passed by the House, it would then be sent to the Senate for approval. Or, since a similar bill has been proposed by the Senate, that bill could be used instead. In any case, that bill would first have to be debated on and then passed by the committee by a 2/3 vote. It would then have to be put on the calendar for floor action and debated, just like in the House. It would then have to pass by a 2/3 vote in a normal debate or, if cloture is invoked, a 3/5 vote.

Once the online gambling bill passed the Senate, that version would likely be different from the House version, if for no other reason then due to the amendments added to the bill. Since both chambers of Congress would have a different version of the bill, it would then need to go to a conference committee. There, representatives from both chambers of Congress meet to work out the differences in the bill. There is no time limit for debate during the conference committee. If they are able to come to an agreement, the committee drafts a conference report, which is presented to both chambers. The House and Senate both then have to approve the conference report by a 2/3 vote.

After the bill passes both chambers (again), it would then be sent to President Obama, where he would have 10 days to sign the bill into law or veto it. The president’s veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, which would pass the bill into law.

All of that has to be done during the 111^th Congress. Once the next Congress takes over, all existing bills that had not been signed into laws are killed. The process would then have to start over again from scratch. Though Frank and Paul could use the same bill, it would have to repeat the same steps, going through committee again (this time with different members) and having a floor vote (again with different members).

Those are just the problems that go along with the time limit placed on the legislative process. There are also problems in the form of various amendments that have been added to the bill. I will have more on that later.

What all of this means is that no one should take the passage of the online gambling bill as a certainty. Even if there is enough support to legalize online gambling in the U.S., there may not be enough time for this Congress to get it done.

Efforts to expanding gambling in the Granite state will go nowhere. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has been looking for an excuse to veto any gambling bill that winds up on his desk. Now he has one.

Last week, the state Senate passed an amendment that would expand gambling in the state by allowing 4 sites to have a total of 10,000 video slots. The amendment passed the Senate by a 14-10 vote – with bipartisan support – and was then sent to the House, where today it was voted down 212-158.

The amendment was introduced by Senator Lou D’Allesandro (D), who has been pushing for gambling expansion in the state for a decade. He believed that now was his best chance to get it passed, since the state is looking for ways to cut down on the $300 million budget deficit.

However, even if the amendment had managed to pass the House, Lynch threatened to veto the gambling legislation. He cited concern that an increase in gambling would lead to an increase in gambling addiction. Lynch, as a Democrat, loves deciding for people what is best for them and protecting them from themselves.

Before he could make any decision on gambling expansion, Lynch said the he wanted to look at the information that the Gaming Study Commission had been gathering over the last nine months. Yesterday, the Commission released a report that said “expanded gaming would generate additional revenues and economic activity, but it would also generate additional societal and economic costs.”

What a shocking turn of events! It turns out that the commission that was appointed by Governor Lynch and then ordered, via Executive Order, to study the impact on expanded gambling on the economy and public safety concluded exactly what Lynch hoped to find. That’s pretty convenient that the report said exactly what Lynch wanted to hear. It’s certainly good news for Lynch, who now has a good excuse to veto the amendment: “Look at the report! It says it will turn everyone into degenerate gambling addicts!”

People like Lynch think that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and need the government to protect them from things that could be potentially dangerous. I could waste too much money on video slots. Please ban them so I can’t spend my money! While we’re at it, this fast food I’ve been eating is making me fat and I’m worried about heart disease. Please ban fatty foods, salt, foods high in sugar and anything else that makes food taste good. Also, every time I get in a car, I’m worried about getting in a wreck and being thrown through the windshield. Can you make it a crime to not wear a seat belt?…Oh, you already did that? Thanks. Now that I have your attention, it’s time to talk about guns.