As passage of the Massachusetts gambling expansion bill becomes more likely, the focus moves from the three casinos and the slot parlor to smaller issues. On Wednesday, members of the state House of Representatives will debate a number of amendments that have been proposed. The bipartisan amendments would have a great impact on the gambling industry and on the state’s economy.

This morning, House Democrats are privately discussing 154 different amendments to the casino bill. Fifty of those amendments were offered by Republicans supportive of the bill, with the rest by fellow Democrats. Among those amendments are incentives for casinos to hire legal Massachusetts residents, creating a nonprofit charity casino, and banning the simulcasting of greyhound racing, according to The Herald News.

Several amendments by Republicans called for verification of legal status. A pair of amendments call for the casinos to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to ensure that employees and job seekers are not illegal immigrants. Another amendment would also check the status of any casino customer who wins more than $600. The bill already requires a check to make sure the prize winner is not delinquent on child support payments. The amendment would widen the scope to also check for immigration status. Another amendment would create a two-year waiting period between a politician holding elected office and then joining the gaming commission.

Though it’s not known how many amendments will make the cut, most insiders believe that the bill will pass the legislature easily. A similar bill passed without much opposition last year, only to be rejected by Governor Deval Patrick. The governor has said that he will accept the current bill. Like in most states, the 2010 election led to a lot of new Republican seats in the Massachusetts legislature, but most of those freshman Republicans support the bill.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) thinks it might be time for the state to allow non-tribal casinos. On Tuesday, he said that the state has to “come to grips” with the fact that gambling is going on throughout the state, whether the state constitution allows it or not. “It’s really not an issue anymore of ‘Well, if we don’t officially sanction it as a government, it’s not going to happen,’” he said. “It is happening.”

Currently the state of New York has five tribal casinos, all of them located upstate. There are also eight racetracks where electronic slot machines are played, but no table games are allowed. The state also has a lottery. Aside from that, all other gambling is illegal due to a constitutional prohibition. Cuomo says the state should look into whether amending the constitution to allow casinos is a good idea.

Doing so won’t be easy. Amending the constitution in New York requires the bill to pass two consecutive legislative sessions. Then voters have to approve the referendum. In the late 1990’s, the state tried to pass an amendment to allow non-tribal casinos, but after it passed the first session, there was not enough support in the next for it to pass the legislature. Then last year the state Senate passed the bill but it never made it through the Assembly.

Owners of the racetracks featuring slot machines are lobbying for legislation that would allow them to be converted to full casinos with table games. There is also a push to bring a casino near New York City and other large metropolitan areas. New York expects to bring in $684 million in revenue from the racinos. Expanding to allow non-tribal full casinos would significantly increase that number.

On Tuesday, the Obama administration made a move that could allow for more casino expansion in the United States. The Interior Department rescinded a rule passed by the Bush Administration in 2008 that limited the ability of Native American tribes to open casinos.

The 2008 rule required tribal casinos to be within commuting distance from the reservations. That limitation led to the rejection of many casino applications because the proposed site was too far away. In New York alone, 22 applications were rejected due to the rule. Chuck Schumer, a New York Senator, lobbied to have the rule overturned and on Tuesday, the Interior Department did just that.

Of course, doing away with the Bush-era rule doesn’t mean there will suddenly be a rash of new tribal casinos throughout the country. There is a lot of bureaucracy and red tape to get through for any tribal casino, let alone an off-reservation one. Since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988, only five tribes have received permission to build a casino off the reservation. Only three of those 23 years were due to the Bush rule.

Still, in a time when many jurisdictions are looking to casinos as a way to boost the economy, this could lead to a casino expansion. There are currently 10 applications for off-reservation tribal casinos being reviewed by the Department of the Interior. For the casino to be built, the Interior Department would first have to take the non-reservation land into trust. Then, among other procedures, the tribe would have to obtain a determination from the federal government that a casino at that site would be in the best interests of both the tribe and the surrounding community.

New Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel got his wish in the Illinois House, and as far as I know he didn’t even have to send a dead fish or any other threat to get it. The state House of Representatives passed a bill allowing a casino in Chicago. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Emanuel is urging them to pass it swiftly.

By a 65-50 vote, the House passed a bill that would allow four additional casinos in Illinois, including one in Chicago. The legislation would also allow slot machines to be added to the state’s racetracks and to the two airports in Chicago.

Emanuel supports the legislation and has lobbied lawmakers in the House and Senate on behalf of bringing a casino to Chicago. He has talked to members of both parties and has also lobbied the governor. After the House passed the bill, Emanuel issued a statement saying that “a Chicago casino will spur local economic growth and provide jobs to Chicagoans, both needed to get our city moving again.”

Often when someone says that a casino will boost an economy, someone else rolls their eyes and says that it won’t do much. However, it’s hard to make that case for Chicago. Though the city doesn’t have its own casino, there is one across the border in Hammond, Indiana, which is only 25 miles away. The casino there gets so much business from Chicago that they refer to themselves as a Chicago entertainment business. Half-joking, Emanuel said recently that “we have a casino in Chicago,” but that “it just happens to be located in Hammond, Indiana.”

Terry Link, the senator sponsoring the bill in his chamber, says that he expects it to clear the Senate easily. He also expects Governor Pat Quinn to “take a long hard look” at the legislation, eventually signing it to avoid turning down billions of tax dollars and new jobs.

So Delaware, are you ready to try again? In March, a bill by Representative Pete Schwartzkopf that would have helped expand gambling in the state failed in the House after the committee voted not to release it to the full House. Now there is a new bill, which this time will be sponsored by Representative Dennis Williams.

Schwartzkopf won’t be a sponsor of the bill this time around because some didn’t feel that his earlier bill was fair. Some complained that it was intended to benefit a single casino developer. Schwartzkopf denies that but is willing to step away from the legislation if that will help it pass.

The legislation would not directly call for casino expansion, but it would make it easier for expansion to happen. One of the ways it would do that is by changing the criteria used by the selection committee to evaluate the long-term benefits of a casino. Another important change is a revamping of the appointment process for the selection committee.

Right now, the panel is appointed by the governor. That’s not a great idea because the power is too concentrated. An anti-gambling governor can simply appoint a bunch of people who are inclined to say “no thanks, I don’t think we need a casino here.” Under new rules that would be established in the legislation, the appointment is done in thirds.

The governor of Delaware would appoint three members of the selection committee. Three members would be a chosen by the Speaker of the House. The other three would be appointed by the Senate President pro tempore. The bill has to pass committee by June 30.

Across the United States, gambling expansion has been a popular topic. States are strapped for cash and in addition to cutting spending, the governments are looking for additional sources of revenue. To that end, gambling expansion is being looked to as a cash cow by some. Such is the case with a new bill introduced in Minnesota.

Two Republican lawmakers, Representative Bob Gunther and Senator David Senjem, proposed legislation today that would allow the two horse racing tracks in the state to add video slot machines. By doing so, they would be converted from race tracks – which continue to lose money and popularity over time – to race track casinos (also called racinos), which can generate significantly larger amounts of money.

Several times in the past some form of racino legislation has been introduced in Minnesota and the bills have always failed. Some think that this time is different, though. The state has a projected budget deficit of $5 billion and states across the country are finally realizing that they need to get serious about getting out of debt. Senjam believes that adding up to 400 slot machines to the two racetracks could bring in approximately $125 million in extra revenue per year. Though that would only make a small dent in the deficit, everything counts right now. That is $125 million that wouldn’t need to be cut.

Senjam says that doing so will produce “the kind of economic development program in Minnesota that will compete with any economic development program, frankly, across the nation.” His plan already has plenty of opposition. Aside from the anti-gambling groups, the legislation is also opposed by the Native American tribes in the state. There are 18 tribal casinos in Minnesota and the tribes do not want competition from racinos.

It seems that lately there or has been is legislation in every U.S. state to legalize or expand gambling in one way or another. Some of the bills have succeeded and others have failed. Still, only two of the 50 states in America do not have some form of legal gambling. Those two are Utah and Hawaii.

There have been a lot of attempts to legalize some type of gambling in the Aloha State lately, but so far each of them has failed. In fact, there have been 17 gambling bills introduced in Hawaii at different times. In the most recent bill, the state House defeated a proposal to build a single casino in Waikiki. The bill would have granted a license to one casino in the tourist district of Waikiki, with the casino taxed at a 15% rate. However, the measure was easily defeated 28-19, with four of the 51 representatives not present for the vote.

Some people question whether gambling will ever be legalized in Hawaii and many question whether it should. In an interesting editorial in the Honolulu Star Advisor, David McClain said that gambling should not be allowed in Hawaii, but not for religious reasons or reasons related to crime or problem gambling. McClain, who is a professor at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, says that gambling should stay away from Hawaii simply because it is allowed in 48 other states, which would set Hawaii apart.

McClain argues that Hawaii is different from any other state. Its appeal is in its exotic island location. He says that “destinations go to great lengths to differentiate themselves in the global marketplace, to offer something unique.” He says that Hawaii has been more successful at that than most destinations and the state has created “a brand image of a safe, stunningly beautiful, remarkably welcoming and culturally singular place.”

Adding casinos would detract from that cultural atmosphere, not to mention that, as McClain puts it, gambling in Hawaii would be “an indoor sport in the greatest outdoor location on earth.” McClain thinks that any casinos in the state would take away from the paradise that the state currently has. I’m not sure I agree, and certainly allowing online gambling and a lottery wouldn’t do that, but it’s an interesting point to consider.

With most U.S. states in debt, the country is looking for ways to close budget gaps. Whenever that happens, the issue of gambling is likely to come up. After all, gambling and casinos are major sources of revenue. A lot of money changes hands and a lot of money is to be made. Iowa is now looking at gambling as a way to increase revenue, but not in a way that’s beneficial to residents.

Some states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have looked to gambling expansion as a way to generate more revenue. They have decided to allow more casinos to be built, with the new casinos having to pay all kinds of fees in addition to being taxed once they are in operation. Other states, such as New Jersey and California, are looking to online gambling. For Iowa, the perceived fix isn’t nearly as generous. They want to raise taxes.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad wants to increase the tax rate on the state’s casinos from 22% to 36%. According to Governor Branstad, the massive tax hike will result in an additional $200 million for the state. While that money is needed, there is no question that a tax increase of that magnitude would adversely impact the casinos. Bob Thursby, General Manager of Terrible’s Casino, said that the tax hike “would have a devastating effect on us.”

Some people may not care about the casinos’ bottom line, but that affects more than just the bank account of the casino executives. For one thing, reduced profits by the casinos could result in fewer deals for the guests. Players could lose some of their comp benefits, some of the good promotions and more.

Another problem is the casino grants. The gaming associations of Iowa routinely give out grants to local businesses and municipalities. For example, when the Denver Fire Department needed new equipment, instead of asking for taxes to be raised on Iowa residents to pay for it, they asked for and received a grant from the Black Hawk County Gaming Association.

Governor Branstad doesn’t believe that taking money from the casinos will reduce the charitable donations, though. Those contributions are required to have a gambling license in Iowa, so Branstad said that “if they stop their charitable contributions, they lose their gambling license.”

The gaming associations have agreements with certain groups to donate a pre-determined percentage of revenue. A double-digit increase of their taxes would either take all of the gaming associations’ money or cause them to prorate their contributing amount, according to Don Hoth, president of the Black Hawk County Gaming Association. “We wouldn’t be able to honor those commitments to the extent that they were made,” Hoth said.

Former Governor Angus King has spoken out in opposition to a referendum to build a casino in the western part of Maine. If you live outside of the United States and don’t know where Maine is, that’s okay, because most Americans don’t, either.

Maine is an inconsequential state roughly the size of my boss’s house and might as well be Canada. Like all states, they are facing a budget deficit, and like many states, they are considering casino revenue as a way of addressing the shortfall. As is the case with any voter referendum, there are some who support it and some who oppose it.

Those opposing adding casinos to Maine created a group called Casinos No! They even have a website, as all special interest groups do today. On the website, the group plays on all of the clichés and worst-case scenarios. In the “Learn More” section, they have stories about people losing all of their money on slot machines, people who become addicted to gambling and even a man who committed suicide after one final “gambling binge.”

They are entitled to their opinion, but the idea that allowing a casino will cause thousands of Maniacs (pretty sure that’s what you call someone from Maine) to blow their money and kill themselves doesn’t seem realistic. I have a little more faith in people than that, even people who live in Maine.

Recently joining the opposition was Angus King, the liberal “Independent” who governed the state from 1995 to 2003. Proponents of the referendum say that adding the casino will add thousands of jobs and much needed revenue. However, according to King, casinos “sell dreams, and turn lives into nightmares.”

He says that the casino won’t provide the promised revenue, which backers say should be approximately $60 million per year in taxes. Worse yet, King says that having casinos in the state will harm Maine’s image.

I have news for you, Mr. King: Maine does not have an image. No one thinks of you at all. More Americans think Puerto Rico is a state than can name or locate Maine on a map. Unless you do something truly outlandish, such as pull a Vermont and become a haven for sexual predators, you don’t have to worry about any image.

November 2 is Election Day and we will know soon after that whether Maine’s voters believe the anti-casino scare tactics.

Yesterday I discussed an online poker bill in California that is so poorly written it is even opposed by those who are pushing for online poker in the state. In case you think that California is alone in its legislative ineptitude, let me assure you that they have plenty of company. Take Rhode Island, for instance.

Rhode Island is the state best known for being near other states that are better known. It also apparently has idiots in their legislature. That’s not surprising. In fact, I’m surprised when I find a politician who is not demonstrably stupid, corrupt or dangerous to society.

Anyway, Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri vetoed a bill yesterday that would have allowed voters to decide whether the state’s two current slot parlors can become full casinos, including offering table games. The plan for a voter referendum was nixed because, according to the governor, it was missing “critical financial information” and took too much power away from the individual communities.

So in other words, the bill is so poorly written that, according to Carcieri, it’s not even ready for the issue to come to a vote. Massachusetts begins debating a proposal for casino expansion today, and as soon as it was learned that they may go ahead with the expansion, the current Rhode Island bill was written. Proponents of the bill think it is important to get casinos up and running as soon as possible in order to avoid losing business to their neighbors in the Bay State.

Governor Carcieri told the lawmakers that there is no rush and that they should take the time to craft a good bill. “While some would argue the threat of gaming in neighboring states requires immediate action,” he said, “I believe the advantage of already established venues allows us the time to develop better information.”

Among the information that needs to be developed and included in the bill is how the revenue from the casinos will be split. The current bill does not specify how much money will go to the state. Carcieri also said that a statewide vote on the matter would take power away from the residents of Newport and Lincoln, where the casinos in question are located.

The governor’s veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote by state lawmakers, which is a possibility, but it is more likely that they will have to start over and write a new bill.