The fellow Democrats agree that allowing a casino in Chicago is a good idea. It would bring revenue to the city that is currently crossing the border to Indiana. However, the legislation that would allow such a casino also calls for several other casinos, slot machines at racetracks and even slots in airports.

Mayor Emanuel is counting on getting the revenue that a Chicago casino would provide, so much that he seems to already be allocating that money. Emanuel predicts that a Chicago casino will bring in $150 million in annual revenue for the city and he has that revenue earmarked for CTA stations, roadwork, school renovations and more. It’s nice to have a plan for extra money, but Governor Quinn doesn’t like the mayor publicly saying how he will spend money that the governor has yet to approve. According to Quinn “spending the money before the law is passed is putting the cart before the horse.”

Emanuel says the revenue is vital to Chicago. In recent years, the federal and state government is allocating less money to the city for its infrastructure. Emanuel says that he is “committed to making sure that the resources that have not been coming from Washington, that have not been coming from Springfield,” start coming from a Chicago casino. To Emanuel, a casino allows the city to become more self-sufficient and pay for needed projects.

Governor Quinn has said that he has a number of problems with the gambling legislation, including that it is too big and that it would reduce government oversight of the industry. He says that the bill has “serious shortcomings” when it comes to “honesty and integrity.” Emanuel has not commented on the bill as a whole, only on the part concerning a casino for the Windy City.

In Senator Lesniak’s letter, he tells Holder that states have a legal right to regulate and operate an online gambling industry as long as it does not cross the state’s borders. As an intrastate business, it would not fall under the jurisdiction of any federal law, including UIGEA and the Wire Act. Lesniak also pointed out that Nevada recently approved mobile sports betting and 37 states allow online wagering on horse races.

This is a big issue for Lesniak, who in November plans to reintroduce legislation to regulate intrastate online gambling in New Jersey. Earlier this year, Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed Lesniak’s bill, saying that he was worried that it violated the state constitution, which confines all casino gambling to within the boundaries of Atlantic City. Lesniak says that the new bill will address all of Christie’s concerns and should be signed by the governor. Senator Lesniak says that his bill would create between 1,586 and 1,903 new jobs and generate between $47 million and $57 million in annual tax revenue for the state. The industry could generate between $210 million and $250 million in revenue, he says.

Michael A. Brown was the District Councilmember most responsible for passage of the gambling legislation. He pushed hard for it last year and eventually had the council include the gambling amendment in a supplemental budget bill. The bill passed last December and the time period for the federal government to strike it down expired, but since then, more information about Mr. Brown has come out.

The Washington Post took a break from their usual regurgitation of liberal talking points to do some investigative reporting. They found that at the time he was pushing the bill and at the time it was passed, Brown was employed by a group called Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge. The international law firm represents a number of companies in the gambling industry, including casino owners and companies that provide gaming equipment. As someone with a client base of gambling companies, his work on the online poker bill could be seen as a conflict of interest.

Brown says he worked as a lobbyist for Edwards Angell and lobbied Congress for various causes beneficial to his clients. However, he never registered as a lobbyist in Washington. Add that to the secrecy surrounding the bill – that then-Mayor Adrian Fenty was not consulted and there was no public debate – and the controversy surrounding the bill is continuing to pick up steam.

Nick Xenophon, an independent senator, has proposed legislation that would allow Australian citizens to void losing bets at online casinos or online poker rooms. If you lose, simply cancel the transaction and keep your wager. If you win, you keep the money. Who says there’s no such thing as a sure thing in gambling?

Of course, there is a major problem with that plan. The casino operators simply couldn’t handle the losses they would incur. If players could keep all winning transactions but void any losing bets, that would basically turn the casinos into giant ATMs, except the players would be withdrawing money belonging to the casino, rather than their own money. The casinos would lose too much money and would have to move out of the Australian market, blocking customers from the nation from playing at the website.

And that is exactly the plan. You see, Senator Xenophon isn’t a Santa Clause type of guy who wants to give these great presents to online gamblers. Far from it. He is an anti-gambling fanatic. With his help, the Australian government passed a law banning Internet gambling, but that hasn’t prevented the citizens from playing. This legislation is another attempt to end the activity in Australia. Since they can’t make the players decide not to play at the casinos, they need to give the casinos an incentive to block those players. If this bill becomes law, that’s exactly what would happen.

So what happened? Today the state Assembly Judiciary Committee approved of the online poker regulation bill, Assembly Bill 258. That allows it to go to the full Assembly floor for a debate and vote. That would be pretty big news if the bill still mattered. Unfortunately, while the idiots in Carson City were debating the bill, they also amended it in such a way that weakened it to the point of inconsequence. Is that being too harsh? You be the judge.

The bill was amended to require federal approval for its implementation. That means even if the bill passes both the Senate and Assembly and is signed by the governor, it still would not take effect unless it is officially approved by either the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Congress. The Nevada lawmakers have essentially given up their own authority to pass laws and handed it over to the federal government. Since the bill only sets up regulation for intrastate online poker, no federal approval should be necessary. Intrastate commerce does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, by amending the bill to require federal approval, the bill is now weakened and probably no longer matters.

So why would the Nevada lawmakers hand that power over to the federal government? It was probably out of fear. Governor Brian Sandoval said before that he was worried that the bill would be “in contravention of the federal law.” Of course, since there is no federal law banning online poker, I would beg to differ on that point. After seeing the treatment that Arizona has gotten lately, though, I think Governor Sandoval is simply afraid of making the feds mad. For that reason, he favored regulation at the federal level instead of the state level.

This amending of the online poker bill reeks of compromise to get the governor onboard with the bill. This way, the spineless governor gets to take a bill he signed into law and ask the feds, “hey, you guys don’t mind if we implement this law of ours, do you?”

Don’t bother, Sandoval. I have the answer. Yes, they will mind. Though there is no federal law banning online poker, the Justice Department is of the “opinion” that it is illegal. So if you give them a say, they will say no. For that reason, this bill no longer matters. Congratulations, Nevada.

Though the legislation survived the funnel deadline last week, lawmakers in the Senate were unable to decide on a bill. Facing questions about how minors and problem gamblers would be protected, the legislation was amended to request a report from the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission. Requesting a report, of course, is a considerable step backward from legalizing online poker and creating regulation for it.

The legislation in its original form would have required players to make cash deposits in brick and mortar casinos. They then would be given a password to an online poker site, where they could gamble with the money they deposited. However, nothing would prevent that password being given to other people, such as minors.

Senator Jack Hatch, a Democrat who opposed the poker bill, said that “the lack of absolute security that an underage person couldn’t obtain the code of the parent and so forth is probably my biggest objection.” Lobbyists for the bill, of course, argued that online poker is already taking place in Iowa, so some regulation is better than none. Others argued that bad regulation isn’t necessarily better than none.

“Just because it’s not regulated now doesn’t mean we should regulate it,” said Senator Roby Smith, a Republican who opposed the bill.

Senator Bill Dotzler, a Democrat who supported the bill, said that attempts to legalize online poker aren’t done. It will just take more time. “I’ve been around long enough to know that bills of this significance sometimes take two or three years to garner support,” he said.

There are currently three racetrack casinos in Delaware and Schwartzkopf’s bill would have added two more. The question before the committee was whether adding more casinos would have a beneficial effect on the economy or whether the market was already saturated. Representatives from the current casinos oppose the bill, repeating the slogan that “three is enough.”

The casino industry is important in Delaware. In 1995, the horse racing tracks were allowed to add slots and in later years, table games were added. Currently, the casinos are the fourth-largest source of revenue for the state. Schwartzkopf believes that adding two more casinos will increase jobs and bring more revenue to the state.

Opponents of the bill argue otherwise, saying that the market is already saturated. Ed Sutor, president of Dover Downs casino, said that “if you add casinos to a saturated market, it does not grow the market; it just splits it into smaller pies.”

To illustrate his point, Sutor pointed out that although the casinos are currently allowed to operate 12,000 slot machines, they only use approximately 7,000. Some slots have been removed due to underperformance. “If there were a market for additional machines, we would be adding them, not taking them off the floor.” Though table games were added to the casinos in the last two years, slots still make up 90% of the casinos’ revenue.

Because the bill did not pass the committee, it normally would be dead and not brought to a full floor vote. However, Schwartzkopf says that he will keep fighting. He has the option of exercising a rare parliamentary maneuver to bring the bill to the floor despite not clearing committee. To do so, half of the House would have to vote to hear the bill.

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.

The online gambling bill, SB 812, was approved by a 10-2 vote. That bill would legalize and regulate intrastate online gambling. Senator Miguel Diaz (R-Miami) said that it was a necessary step since Floridians are already gambling online, but the state is losing out on the tax revenue and is unable to make sure the available websites are safe. The bill has been and will continue to be opposed by anti-gambling groups, with most feeling that allowing gambling to be done online will increase the occurrences of underage gambling and problem gambling.

The other bill, SB 1594, passed by a 7-5 vote. The bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Sachs (D-Delray Beach), would eliminate the current requirement that greyhound tracks offer live dog races in order to operate card rooms. Sachs believes that the tracks can make more money if they hold fewer races but are still able to operate the card rooms. She also said that despite a low interest in greyhound races, the dogs are constantly run – perhaps too often – so the card rooms can be run.

Opponents of the bill say that it will hurt the greyhound racing industry, thinking that most of the tracks will opt to entirely end races. That will end a $50-million-per-year industry and put many dog breeders and owners out of business. Senator Sachs says that it is necessary to save “a dying industry in this state.”

Andrew Wilkie, an independent politician who chairs a committee for gambling reform, told The Sunday Age that there was “clearly a need to reform.” He referred to the current state of the industry as being like the “Wild West.” The Interactive Gambling Act of 2001 banned all forms of online gambling except sports betting, but the law goes largely unenforced. Most of the gambling websites where the citizens play are located overseas, outside the jurisdiction of Australian authorities.

Wilkie thinks the current situation is unsafe, feeling that there is nothing in place to protect minors and problem gamblers. To illustrate his point, he tells horror stories about people who have lost their homes due to gambling debts. Still, while politicians like Senator Nick Xenophon favor stepping up prohibition efforts, Wilkie isn’t so sure that is the way to go. Wilkie said he was “not automatically lining up with Nick Xenophon on this” issue and wants to keep an open mind regarding gambling. Instead of prohibition, which hasn’t worked yet, Wilkie thinks it may be best to have the government legalize and regulate the industry so they can provide the protection he believes the industry is currently lacking (whether or not that is true is another story).

Currently, Wilkie’s committee is looking at the idea of making pre-commitment schemes mandatory for poker machines. After dealing with that issue, he expects the committee to focus on online gambling and how to deal with the industry. Xenophon, who is also a member of the committee, has proposed legislation that would prohibit Australian credit card companies from processing transactions for online gambling.