Gambling law in Alabama may soon change. The state has traditionally been against gambling, but recent events have some people, the residents as well as politicians, reconsidering their position. Electronic bingo machines, which are currently illegal, have sprung up across the state, but so far nothing has been done about it. Governor Robert Riley was frustrated with the fact that the city police and attorney general seemed to look the other way. In response, he formed a Task Force on Illegal Gambling last year.

One of the first actions of the task force was to raid three establishments believed to be housing illegal gambling, which include Country Crossing, VictoryLand and the White Hall Entertainment Center. However, since they did not have a warrant, a judge ordered that the raid be halted. VictoryLand then filed a restraining order. Since then, a warrant has been issued to search the establishments and in response, the businesses have closed indefinitely to avoid being raided.

And that’s where things get tricky. If the businesses are indeed running illegal gambling operations, Riley is well within his rights by going after them, though many in the gambling community see him as an evil anti-gambling activist. The attempted raids and subsequent closings, however, have stirred up controversy in the state and now it seems that the people don’t even agree with the gambling ban anymore.

Once a strong anti-gambling voice, the people of Alabama have seen their state, like the rest of the country, mired in a bad recession. Jobs are scarce and with those businesses shut down, the economy is hurting even more and countless workers are wondering if they still have jobs. As a result, a recent poll by the Christian Coalition shows that 2/3 of the people of Alabama are opposed to Riley’s gambling raids and a poll by the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama found that 72% of the people are in favor of regulated gambling in the state and only 25% want gambling outlawed.

In response, Riley’s popularity in the state is falling and state Representative Marcel Black introduced a bill that would allow the voters to decide whether or not to legalize gambling. At this time, shutting down illegal gambling is perfectly constitutional, but doing so could hurt Riley. With thousands of jobs at stake, no one wants to be the guy who made the unemployment situation in Alabama even worse. For that reason, it may be best to let the people vote and see what they decide. In the meantime, do nothing. It may turn Riley’s stomach to turn a blind eye to illegal activity, no matter how harmless, but it may be what’s best for the state, his reputation and that of his party.

Back in 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed a deal with the Seminole tribe that would have allowed blackjack and other table games in their casinos in exchange for the state getting a cut. The deal was later shot down by the state House and then a second deal was also scrapped. In that situation, most people would give up, say they gave it the old college try and move on. Crist, however, is still fighting for a deal. The question is, why?

I don’t want to sound cynical, but I usually don’t think that politicians make decisions based on what’s best for the people. I think they make decisions based on what’s best for them, which includes covering their butts when they make a mistake. Such may be the case here.

Though I stated it before, it’s worth reiterating that Crist is fighting for money he’s already spent. You see, governors have control over the budget of their state and they allocated funds for each department within the state based on revenue from many sources, mostly taxes. In this year’s education budget for the state of Florida, $433 million comes from revenue brought in by the deal with the Seminole tribe over their blackjack tables. Since earlier this month the House voted down that deal for the second time, that $433 million doesn’t exist.

Folks, if it’s bad financial strategy for an individual to spend money they don’t have, it’s equally bad (or worse) for a state to do that. In fact, many of America’s problems stem from the fact that the federal government is doing exactly that. Now it seems that Charlie Crist, the Florida governor who wants to represent the state in the Senate, has done that as well.

To save face, Crist needs to get a deal done so he doesn’t have to explain why he had to cut $433 million from the education budget. Considering he’s already trailing Marco Rubio in the polls for the Republican primary, that would be a mistake from which it would be nearly impossible to recover. And that’s why Crist is fighting so hard for a deal.

Thus far, Gambling Review has published roughly 7 million stories (or at least it seems that way) about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and Representative Barney Frank’s attempts to overturn it. Frank thus far has been less than successful. In 2008, Frank introduced a bill in the House that would have repealed UIGEA and was defeated, despite having a Democratic majority in the House. Once President Obama and the new Congress were sworn in back in January, Frank introduced a new bill to repeal UIGEA. The bill so far has 60 co-sponsors, though many are not confident that Frank will succeed his second time around. For various reasons, not the least of which is skyrocketing unemployment and an administration focused on passing healthcare reform, flooring of the bill has been delayed.

In the meantime, some representatives would like to stall. Though UIGEA was passed in 2006, regulations for the law weren’t passed until 2008 and the implementation of the law isn’t set until December 1, 2009. Who says Congress doesn’t get things done quickly? Now a group of representatives, led by Frank and Republican Peter King, have sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking for the implementation of UIGEA to be delayed. Their reason is that with the economy still in a deep recession, now is not a good time to place more burdens on the financial institutions.

It will be interesting to see if Bernake and Geithner listen to the request. After all, both have claimed time and again that the recession is over, despite all evidence to the contrary. Therefore, agreeing to delay the implementation of UIGEA on the basis that the recession, which they say is over, is putting too much of a burden on the financial industry would seem to be an admission that they are lying, or at least wrong, about the economy. For that reason, like the passage of Frank’s bill, I think this attempt will fail.