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.

As the Great Recession continues and states look for ways to close budget shortfalls, many are turning toward their inner Libertarian. A more free market means a greater flow of money through the state. Taxing it provides more revenue for the states. Therefore, many states have learned (finally) that more freedom is good for the economy. For that reason, a handful of states are considering gambling expansion.

Other states aren’t interested and are instead trying to clamp down on the gambling that already exists. One such example is the state of North Carolina, the most liberal state in the south. Back in 2006, the state legislature banned video poker gambling machines. They exempted two models of sweepstakes machines, though, and those have been in operation ever since.

Now the state’s General Assembly wants to ban those sweepstakes machines as well. Democrats Melanie Goodwin and Martha Alexander have proposed House Bill 80, which would entirely ban video gambling in the Tar Heel State.

Why would they want to ban the sweepstakes machines? For your own good, of course! Like most liberal politicians, they feel they need to protect people from themselves. Some of the reasons they give for the proposed ban are that the games have low odds of winning (yet they still allow a state lottery), they prey upon the poor (yet they still allow a lottery), and that they lead to an increase in armed robbery, with people trying to steal from the machines. At the risk of being repetitive, let me just say “yet, they still allow a state lottery!”

Lotteries have incredibly low odds of winning, are played more by the poor than by the middle and upper classes, and are often the targets of robbery. However, the great state of North Carolina is more than happy to run the lottery and make money off of it. Maybe instead of banning the sweepstakes machines, they should just call them the North Carolina Sweepstakes and take most of the money while promising it will be used for education.

In a surprise move, the European Union’s Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the Netherlands could block Ladbrokes and Betfair, the popular bookmaker and betting exchange, from offering bets to Dutch gamblers if the reason for the ban was to protect against “fraud and crime.”

All members of the European Union have a free trade agreement that prohibits banning foreign goods from another EU nation in favor of domestic competition. For that reason, in 2008 the Dutch Supreme Court asked the ECJ to rule on whether their position of banning those sites was compatible with EU law.

Representatives from Ladbrokes and Betfair were predictable disappointed. They say that while the Netherlands claim to be concerned with gambling addiction and corruption, their real reason for the ban is to preserve the state-run monopoly on the gambling market in the form of De Lotto.

A spokesman from Ladbrokes said that the stance of the Netherlands was “hard to reconcile with its expansive gambling policy, which is characterized by the introduction and active advertising, marketing and promotion of new gaming products.”

It seems that the Netherlands thinks that gambling is dangerous unless it’s under the control of their government. That’s a common theme among the more authoritative governments and as a monarchy, the Netherlands certainly belongs to that group. I guess Queen Beatrix doesn’t trust the people to make their own decisions about what kinds of bets to make and what people to do business with. Therefore, she will make the decision for you. How kind and protective of her.

In response to the ECJ ruling, Betfair’s European public affairs chief, Tim Phillips, said that the judgment “once again demonstrates the need for the European Commission to take a lead on this issue, so that we can…settle the online gambling debate once and for all.” He and others calls for the EC to pass online gambling legislation at the EU level that would strictly and clearly state the rules each member nation must follow regarding online gambling.

When I first read this report, I had to double-check to make sure my source wasn’t The Onion, The Daily Show, MSNBC or some other source of fake news. It wasn’t. It seems as though this report I’m about to give you is actually true.

A Pennsylvania man forfeited $2,000 in casino winnings and was arrested for violating his self-imposed ban. The 55-year-old man, who has not been named, placed himself on Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion program in April 2009. Many people place themselves on a self-exclusion list if they have a gambling addiction or some other problem of irresponsibility and they want to make sure they are unable to go to a casino and lose money.

If you are on the self-exclusion list, no casino is allowed to admit you and let you play. Somehow, a Pennsylvania casino – the Presque Isle Downs & Casino in Erie, PA – did let him enter and play. Not only that, but he won a $2,000 jackpot. Once it was learned that he was on the self-exclusion list, his winnings were forfeited and he was arrested for trespassing.

And there’s where I think this goes into the realm of insanity. Players like this man have a problem controlling their urge so to take away the temptation of gambling at a casino, they voluntarily place themselves on an exclusion list. It is the choice of the individual to place themselves on the list as a way of helping them fight the temptation to play at a casino. The casinos then oblige by helping them with that. Why are criminal charges involved?

I get the forfeiting of the money. That makes sense because if he gets to keep it he is being rewarded for giving in to temptation and playing at a casino. Since the man wants to avoid that, you don’t want to reward that behavior. I don’t think a punishment in the form of criminal charges is warranted, though. Did he know when he agreed to the self-exclusion that he could be charged with trespassing if he violated the self-imposed ban?

It seems to me that if people with gambling problems learn that putting themselves on a self-exclusion list could bring criminal charges against them, they won’t do it. Let’s face it, if they didn’t have a problem with willpower, they wouldn’t be trying to exclude themselves. If relapsing can result in a criminal conviction, though, it seems like many will say “no thanks” and will not get help with their gambling problem.

Charging this man with trespassing is wrong and the charges need to be dropped immediately. Anything else is absurd and just morally wrong.

Yesterday, I exposed the myth that Democrats are for online gambling and Republicans are against it. Even Barney Frank, who is leading the charge to legalize and regulate online gambling, didn’t vote against UIGEA. The truth is, the Democrats and Republicans stand together in opposition of online gambling.

This may come as a surprise, but in recent years there hasn’t been a whole lot of difference between the two parties. Both have favored big government, but for different reasons. Both have had out of control spending, but they spend money on different things. The Democrats were against online gambling because it’s something they can’t control and Republicans were against it for mostly moral reasons – seeing gambling as a potentially destructive habit.

Things are changing, though. You may have heard of the Tea Party movement sweeping the nation. It is a conservative movement that strays from the current Republican party and is focused on the principles of the Founding Fathers – the original conservative Republicans. The Tea Party embraces almost a Libertarian form of Constitutionalism and wants a small government that will stay out of people’s lives. As you might imagine, such a mindset is good for online gambling legislation because the Tea Partiers believe that the government has no right to tell you what you can and can’t do with your money.

Tea Partiers are putting pressure on the legislature, but just as importantly, they’re electing small-government candidates. Look at the recent Republican primaries and you will see the establishment Republican candidates losing (or trailing in the polls) to the Tea Party small-government guy. Rand Paul’s win and Marco Rubio’s annihilation of Charlie Crist that forced Crist to drop out of the primary and run as an Independent are the most recent examples.

If Tea Party Republicans continue to gain power, it brings the perfect storm together for the push to legalize online gambling at a federal level. That is because it allows the Republicans and Democrats to join together on the issue, this time in support of online gambling. The Republicans would be for the legislation because it takes power from the government and gives it back to the people and the Democrats would support it because it gives them another industry to regulate and tax. The Democrats rarely turn down an opportunity for tax revenue.

For that reason, fans of online gambling in America should support the likes of Paul, Rubio, JD Hayworth and even small-government Democrats like Mark Critz.

It seems that U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has changed his mind about online gambling. Four years ago, he joined the majority in voting for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Though the bill doesn’t actually ban online gambling (a fact reinforced by a recent Supreme Court decision), it does allow the federal government to go after financial institutions that are involved in transactions that are considered “unlawful” internet gambling transactions. Which transactions are unlawful is anybody’s guess – that’s one of the problems with the law – but many people believe it only applies to states that have banned online gambling.

Though he voted for a government restriction of online gambling in 2006, Blumenauer now says that he was wrong to do so. Yesterday he released a statement saying that the United States is missing out on gambling revenue that could help states and the federal government with their budget problems. In addition, he believes that allowing online casinos to operate in the U.S. would create jobs.

Blumenauer also suddenly realized that restricting online gambling is hypocritical, since fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries are exempt from UIGEA’s rules. So Blumenauer has finally seen the light. Good for him. I wonder who pointed it out to him (maybe he’s been talking to Ron Paul).

There is a popular misconception that Democrats are for legal online gambling and Republicans are against it. They say that UIGEA was pushed through Congress because the Bush administration wanted it done and Democrats have been fighting it ever since.

Like much of the popular opinion regarding politics, that is inaccurate. UIGEA was passed in 2006, during Bush’s second term. That much is true. However, the bill, which was part of the SAFE Port Act, had overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, it had a type of bipartisan support that is rare in such a polarized era. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 421-2, with 9 representatives not voting (why members of Congress can abstain from voting so often when that is their only job is another story). It then passed the Senate by a 98-0 vote, with 2 senators not voting. After differences in the House and Senate versions were resolved, the conference report was then passed by the House 409-2, with 21 representatives not voting.

Two, folks. Two people voted against the bill. Of those two who voted against the bill, one was a Republican (Jeff Blake of Arizona) and one was a Democrat (Edward Markey of Massachusetts). Barney Frank, the current “patron saint” of online gambling, did not vote.

This is the legislation that he now deems to important to overturn, yet he didn’t even vote on it. Not an aye, not a nay. Nothing. Keep in mind that UIGEA was part of the much larger SAFE Port Act, which was concerned mostly with port security, but to say that it was a Republican bill that Democrats opposed isn’t exactly accurate, considering that only 1 Democrat voted against it and just as many Republicans did as well. Now, I don’t support either party, because they both suck (though I think Republicans suck less), but it’s time for some people to get their stories straight.

More and more states have been expanding gambling lately. For some, it’s in order to provide more revenue to states that are strapped for cash. For some, it’s a civil rights issue, where they feel a ban on gambling goes against the freedom of people to spend their money as they please. For others, it’s simply because they like regulating things.

Last year, the state of Illinois passed a law that legalized video gambling in the state. It was done with the thinking that any city or town that didn’t want to be a part of the gambling industry could opt out by banning it. Anyplace in the state where video gambling wasn’t specifically banned would be made legal by the new state law.

When that happened, the city of Chicago quickly passed a ban on video gambling machines. Since it’s Chicago, the more corrupt city in America, I’m guessing it’s because the anti-gambling lobby paid the politicians more money than the pro-gambling lobby did. After all, money is the grease in the Chicago political machine.

After hearing pleas from supporters of video gambling, the Chicago City Council finally agreed to consider overturning the ban. After listening to the groups, the Council had a hearing on the video gambling ban on Monday. The outcome of the hearing – if there was an outcome – is unknown.

The battle over the legalization of video gambling at the state level was intense and at times it has been in Chicago as well. Supporters state that overturning the ban will result in increased revenue as well as a creation of jobs. Considering Chicago is going bankrupt and has an unemployment rate over 11%, both are big issues. Of course, since this is Chicago, I doubt the City Council cares what is good for the people and will only act in their own interests. That means that the pro-gambling lobby better start making good offers.

Of course, I’m not advocating bribery or any other sort of corruption. I am only acknowledging that it is rampant and expected in the Windy City. The pro-gambling lobby wasn’t “convincing” enough the first time. Let’s see if they do a better job this time.

When you think of big government abusing its power and taking over private industry, the state of Kentucky usually isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. But such is the problem in America that the progressive movement has so infected both major parties that even a traditionally conservative state like Kentucky has fallen victim.

Last year, Governor Steve Beshear and the state of Kentucky attempted to seize the domain names of 141 online gambling sites. The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) immediately filed a petition to block the seizure of those domains. Under current state statutes, online gambling isn’t even illegal in the state of Kentucky, though of course laws can be interpreted a variety of ways, which is why lawyers exist.

Yesterday, the state Supreme Court ruled against the 141 gambling sites. In the ruling, the court stated that the domain names themselves cannot serve as an entity and court and they must be owned by a person or entity. With no owners in court, iMEGA therefore did not supply a member of the domain names. In other words, the court threw out the petition because iMEGA’s clients did not appear in court.

As a result of this ruling, the state of Kentucky can once again attempt to seize the online gambling domain names. If they do, however, it’s likely that iMEGA would file another petition. It is the belief of iMEGA that the Supreme Court’s ruling is not final and that if they can produce an owner of one or more of the domain names, the Court would be willing to hear their case.

Joe Brennan, Chairman of iMEGA, stated that “the Court clearly indicates they agree with our arguments and are inviting us to re-file so that the technicality of the standing issue can be resolved.” iMega plans to re-file and when the Supreme Court reaches a decision, we’ll let you know.

Well, President Obama in a speech five days before the election said that they were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Well, he’s right, but not in the way that he intended. I believe that Obama wants to fundamentally transform America by doing away with the private sector, capitalism and basically democracy. He wants to shift a rather centrist nation far to the left. However, what he has done is transformed the nation by shifting it to the right.

As the government has tried to grab as much power as possible and grow as large as possible, there has been rebellion among the American people. Equally as important, though, is how it has affected the Republican Party. The Republican Party as it existed in 2008 was more liberal than the Democratic Party in the days of President John F. Kennedy. As a result of the current administration’s policies, though, Republican voters have learned that now we need conservativism more than ever and that big government, high taxes, and high spending policies can’t be accepted, whether it’s coming from a Democrat or a Progressive Republican, such as George W. Bush, John McCain and Charlie Crist. As a result, McCain and Crist are likely to lose in the primaries for their senate seats.

But what about president? At last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Ron Paul won the straw poll for presidential preference. Paul, who is a Republican with very Libertarian ideology, won 31% of the vote, with Mitt Romney (a centrist) coming in second with 22%. Romney had won the straw poll in each of the last 3 years. Sarah Palin received 7%.

No one knows if Paul will run for the Republican nomination. He did in 2008 and didn’t get nearly as many votes in the primary as Romney or McCain. Times have changed, though, and his anti-spending message resonates now more than ever.

So what does this mean for online gambling? If Paul was elected president, it would be a good thing for the online gambling community in America as well as anyone who wants an expansion of brick and mortar casinos. Paul is co-sponsor of Barney Frank’s bill in the House that would overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Like the issues of spending and regulation, there has been a public shift in sentiment regarding gambling as well. States like Alabama that have traditionally been against gambling, either online or in casinos, are starting to come around, according to recent polls. As the economy continues to struggle and many states are facing budget deficits, adding revenue from gambling makes sense now more than ever. It would also lead to an increase of jobs, something that is badly needed, since 9.7% of the country is still unemployed according to the White House (and a much larger number according to many economists).

Before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that Ron Paul has always been considered unelectable in a national election. Though times have changed, maybe they haven’t changed enough for a man like Paul to sit in the Oval Office. However, his surge in popularity shows a shift in attitude in America, which is just as important. With Americans demanding less regulation, more freedom for private business, and a balancing of the state and federal checkbooks, online gambling legislation could be a safer bet now than ever.

Online gamblers and casino operators, watch out. China is coming after you. On the official website of the Ministry of Public Security, the government stated that they will “concentrate on investigating major and important cases of online gambling, knock out domestic and foreign groups that organize online gambling, and severely punish the criminal elements.”

If you’re involved in gambling in any way that relates to China and that statement doesn’t scare you, then you must not know much about the country. The Chinese government has a way of crushing all opposition and when they say phrases like “severely punish,” they mean it. This is the country that responds to protests by running over the protestors with tanks. It’s the country that controlled a population that wasn’t particularly keen on Communism by starving millions of people to death. Mao may be long gone and China may be seen as much kinder and gentler than in Mao’s day, but that’s only because anything would seem kinder and gentler in comparison.

Traditional gambling was banned in China after the Communist takeover in 1949 because the government didn’t want people to have control over their own money. If you could make and spend your own money, you are less reliant on the government. China, of course, continues to allow a state-run lottery, as is often the case in countries that ban gambling. In the absence of a legal way to gamble within Chinese borders, internet gambling has become more popular. In light of that development, China intends to go after those who gamble online as well as the financial institutions used and the online casinos who operate the games.

A fight for control of the internet is nothing new. When Google brought their popular search engine to the country, it was with the stipulation that the government controlled what information could be accessed. It has long been the policy of China, and all Communist governments for that matter, to control the flow of information, because that is the easiest way to crush an uprising.

When last year’s protests of a disputed election in Iran were publicized thanks to social networking sites like Twitter, China took note. China currently blocks the use of Twitter, Flickr, Youtube and Facebook. After Google accused the Chinese government of hacking into their Gmail service to retrieve information on human rights activists, it is likely that Google has seen the end of its days in China as well.

If you live in China, I doubt you have the ability to read this page. If you are in any way involved with online gambling in China, though, heed their warning. When China says someone will be punished, they mean business.