When they’re not sitting around doing nothing while collecting government pensions or rioting and burning down cars and looting stores because of anger at losing those pensions, Greeks love to gamble online. At least, that’s what the government is counting on, because they have drafted new online gambling legislation that would regulate the industry within their borders.

The Greek government, in an attempt to add revenue to a nation being crippled by debt and a workforce that isn’t used to actually working for their money, has introduced legislation that would legalize online gambling in the country but require offshore online casinos, sports books and poker rooms to acquire licenses from the Greek government. In addition, the online gambling companies would have to set up servers in Greece, process their financial transactions within the country and operate using a Greek domain name.

All of those moves are intended to bring money that Greeks are currently spending on foreign operators back into the economy. It’s a small fix, but every little thing counts when you’re facing total economic collapse, so I wouldn’t expect the legislation to get a lot of opposition within the Greek government.

The online gambling legislation would also allow the Greek government to block the ISP of any foreign online gambling website that did not obtain a license and meet their other requirements. In addition, it would allow the government to stop and prosecute any illegal online gambling transactions involving Greek citizens.

The online gambling legislation is scheduled for debate this month and if passed, has a target date of May 2011 for full implementation.

Earlier today I wrote about how time limits and the strict procedure of the American legislative process could derail any hopes of online gambling legislation passing this year. Did you read it yet? If not, I’ll wait. Go ahead.

That is far from the only obstacle facing Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (HR 2267), though. Another major obstacle is amendments added onto the bill by congressmen. For better or worse, lawmakers have the ability to tack amendments onto any bill being discussed, even if those amendments aren’t related. Sometimes it is done as a compromise to get more votes for the bill. Sometimes it is done to sabotage the bill by getting those who would otherwise support it to vote against it. Sometimes unrelated bills are tacked onto another bill (like the UIGEA being added to the SAFE Port Act).

Last week, 14 amendments were added to the online gambling bill that would repeal UIGEA and regulate the online casino industry in the United States. One such amendment was added by Brad Sherman, a California Democrat. Sherman’s amendment bans any online casinos that violate existing U.S. laws from receiving a license to operate in the country once HR 2267 is passed. Since federal laws on online gambling are extremely vague – when they exist at all – it is hard to say which online casinos are in violation of U.S. laws and which are in the clear. Therefore, that amendment’s impact is unknown, but it could cost a lot of online casinos the ability to accept U.S. customers. The online gambling lobbies, obviously, are not happy with Sherman’s amendment.

That wasn’t the only amendment added during the mark-up that hurts the bill. A similar amendment by Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Michele Bachmann (R-MI) forbids overseas companies that have engaged in illegal online gambling business in the U.S. from receiving a license. It also bans anyone who had been employee of said companies from obtaining a license. Peter King (R-NY) added an amendment that prohibits sports betting.

Another amendment by Sherman allows states a full legislative session to opt-out of online gambling. Interestingly, an amendment by Joe Baca (D-CA) that allows states and tribes to opt-in to online gambling was defeated. So I guess they can opt-out but not opt-in.

The biggest head-scratcher was another amendment by Baca that would have allowed Native American tribes to participate in online gambling. Frank, as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, denied the amendment without allowing a vote on the basis that the amendment is not germane, meaning it is not relevant to the subject of the bill.

Excuse me? That seems pretty relevant. You want to legalize online gambling in the United States but don’t think the question of whether members of Native American tribes are allowed to participate is relevant?

First of all, the “not germane” argument is only used when a congressman doesn’t want something to be voted on. Unrelated amendments are added to bills all the time. The only conclusion I can draw from this decision is that Barney Frank wants you to be allowed to gamble online, as long as you’re not one of those Indians.

Whether the post-mark-up bill will have more or less support from Congress is unclear, but with no urgency to pass a similar bill in the Senate, it may not matter. For that reason, though it’s still early, Frank and Paul’s online gambling regulation bill just may be dead.

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.

Ah, government regulation. Many online poker players and proponents of online casinos support governments regulating online gambling because that gives them easier access to the games. In some countries, it would also take a currently illegal activity and make it legal. There is a problem that goes along with government regulation, though. Actually, there are many problems, but a major one is money. You see, governments aren’t going to regulate an industry out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it for tax revenue.

France recently opened up their online gambling market to foreign operators so online casinos based overseas could attract French customers. This was seen as a victory for supporters of online gambling in France. However, the legislation also mandated a 2% tax increase on all new online gambling sites. Those are sites that are new or new to the French market. For that reason, all overseas online casinos that entered the French market were slapped with a 2% tax increase.

Liberals and other people who know nothing about business would say, “So what? Those rich casinos can afford to pay more money. I don’t care if their taxes went up, since it doesn’t affect me.” The problem is, whenever you raise taxes on businesses it does affect you. It affects anyone who is a customer or partner of that business and anyone employed by that business. When hit with a higher tax, businesses will usually pass that extra cost on to their customers. That is exactly what online casinos are doing.

Most online poker sites operating in the French market have increased the rake by 2%. Some of those casinos and poker rooms are reporting rakes as high as 7.7%. That means it is costing the online poker players a lot of money and they are not too happy about it.

To protest the higher rakes, many online poker players have organized “sit out” protests. This method has the players signing up at poker tables but then refusing to play. With them occupying the table, no one else can take their spot and the casino loses money. Their goal is to force the online casinos and poker rooms to lower the rake percentage. The casinos, however, say that they have been losing money ever since France enacted the new gambling laws and instituted the tax increase and the only way they can remain profitable is to increase the rake.

And there you have the problem. The government running an industry is always bad for the industry, but it’s even worse for the consumers. The poker players don’t want to pay the high rake, but it’s necessary for the casinos to stay in business thanks to the tax hike by the government. Without that additional tax revenue, though, the government would not allow the casinos to operate in their country. It is a situation where nobody wins.

A new law in the U.S. state of North Carolina may outlaw and shut down the only significant form of gambling currently going on within their borders. A new law, House Bill 80, was passed by the state legislature last week and is awaiting the signature of Governor Beverly Perdue, who is expected to sign the bill into law within the next week.

This isn’t the first time that gambling fans in the Tar Heel state have been targeted by lawmakers. Dating as far back as 1791, most forms of gambling have been illegal. In 2006, the state passed laws that banned video poker. That same year, Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which allows the feds to go after financial institutions involved in transactions related to “unlawful” online gambling, whatever that means.

Last year, North Carolina’s legislature passed a law banning online gambling. The law targeted online slot games, or “server-based electronic game promotions,” as it is worded in the law. That shut down the online slot business at Internet cafes, but the gamblers found a way around the law.

As a way of complying with the letter of the law while still allowing customers to spend their money as they please, Internet sweepstakes cafes were established. These establishments and the games they provide are legal because they have predetermined sweepstakes systems for the awarding of prizes, rather than it being done in an online pool. In addition, the sweepstakes machines don’t pay out to the players, since that is banned by a different state law. Instead, players get their winnings from a teller in the café.

If House Bill 80 becomes state law, North Carolina residents will lose yet another form of gambling and the Internet sweepstakes cafes will have to shut down. The law would take effect on January 1, 2011, so the cafes would have to be closed by then.

The new gambling legislation in Belgium is already being challenged. Two powerful online gambling lobbies, the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) have filed a complaint with the European Commission, stating that the law violates European Union rules.

As has been the case every other time someone has petitioned the EU about a European nation’s gambling laws, it comes down to foreign competition. According to the complaint, the new Belgian law places barriers for foreign competition in their online gambling market. Though the law doesn’t ban overseas operators, it requires applications for internet gambling licenses to first participate in the land-based market. For domestic operators, that isn’t a problem. For overseas online casinos, though, that is only possible if they open a brick and mortar casino in Belgium, which none want to do. Few European online casinos are involved in any land-based businesses. The complaint also states that online casinos would need to have servers, equipment and personnel located in Belgium permanently.

Instead of protecting consumers, it seems that the Belgian government is using their gambling laws to protect their land-based casinos from foreign competition. Such a thing is not permitted by EU free-trade rules.

In the complaint, the RGA stated that the Belgian law “completely ignores the obligations and safeguards to which foreign operators are already subject in their member state of establishment.” CEO Clive Hawkswood stated that the policy of protectionism will actually hurt Belgian consumers because it will “only serve to reduce the value and choice available to them.”

Belgian lawmakers insist that the legislation is legitimate and that it is intended to protect their people and ensure that all online casinos available to their citizens are safe. However, according to the EGBA, the response was nothing other than Belgian waffling.

There has been no comment yet from the European Union.

Poland’s July 4 presidential runoff may decide the fate of online gambling in the nation for the near future. I liked the late President Lech Kaczynski, mostly because of his extreme opposition to communism, and like many people, was saddened when he, his wife, and top ranking delegates died in the April 10 plane crash. However, it is no secret that President Kaczynski, despite his other virtues, was no friend of online gambling.

President Kaczynski passed strict gambling laws, including restricting all forms of gambling to casinos. He also banned online gambling in the country and attempted to block Polish access to overseas online casinos. Online gamblers then had few options in Poland.

Though President Kaczynski’s death was a tragedy, proponents of online gambling hope that something good will come out of it. The late president’s twin brother, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is also a member of the Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc party and, if elected, plans to continue most of the policies of his brother. However, he is trailing in the polls to his runoff opponent, Bronislaw Komorowski. The current acting-president, Komorowski is a member of the Tlatforma Obywatelska party, which is also a conservative party, like the Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, but is closer to the center and tends to be more accepting of gambling.

Though I have not heard Komorowski speak specifically on the subject of online gambling, many believe that he favors regulating and taxing the industry, making it easier for Polish citizens to access online casinos and possibly safer as well. The good news for Poland is that both candidates to replace the late Kaczynski are good options overall (which is the opposite of America’s 2008 choices). For online gambling proponents, though, a Komorowski win, which seems likely, has a better outlook for their pastime.

This bill seemed a lock. Though gambling is always somewhat controversial, the idea to allow intrastate online poker within the borders of California had few opponents. The state is hemorrhaging cash and needs additional sources of revenue ASAP. The bill proposing intrastate online gambling seemed destined to have an easy path to becoming law.

Never underestimate the ability of politicians to ruin something good. Most of the bad bills that have been passed were based on good intentions, usually in the name of offering protection. Interestingly, you can say the same thing about the Mafia.

Anyway, though few objected to an intrastate online poker bill for California, as I have already reported, the bill at question was crafted so poorly that even the biggest proponents of intrastate online gambling, including the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, could not support the bill. Their main contention is that the bill does nothing to stop outside competition. Though it is meant to allow California operators to make money, that money could go overseas.

Due to the problems with the bill, Senator Roderick Wright, Chairman of the Governmental Organization Committee, decided to postpone the committee vote on the bill. The vote was scheduled to take place on June 29, but without enough support to pass it, the vote has been delayed. That means it is unlikely that anything will happen with the bill this year.

In a slight understatement, Wright said that “as author of the bill, let me say that the bill needs more work.” By “more work,” he means that he needs to rewrite it in such a way that it will have some support. The groups thought to be the biggest supporters of the bill have come out in opposition to it. Well, not Wright has plenty of time to work on revisions.

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.

Only California could screw something like this up. Aside from the U.S. federal government, the California government is the most inept, wasteful and clueless governing body imaginable. This is the same state that decided to hand I.O.U’s to residents because they couldn’t afford to pay them.

What have they done now? The state of California has crafted an online gambling bill that has so little support that even proponents of gambling expansion are against it. Wow, now that’s an accomplishment.

The bill in question is Senate Bill 1485, which would authorize the creation of an intrastate online poker system. The bill proposes that the Department of Justice give out three five-year contracts to California operators to run online poker websites. The sites would be regulated by the state government and only residents of the state of California would be able to play.

So what’s the problem? As is often the case, the bill is reported to be poorly worded and too vague on the details. Opponents of the bill state that there is nothing preventing overseas companies from bidding for and winning the contracts. Therefore, a bill that was intended to bring money into the state could actually take money away from it.

The worries about the bill are so widespread that even the biggest proponents of online poker legislation seem to be against it. That includes the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations (TASIN), who sent a letter to Rod Wright, the chairman of California’s Senate Governmental Organization Committee, expressing their opposition to the bill. Even the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the biggest proponents of California online gambling, signed that letter.

The Morongo Indians have pushed hard for online gambling in the state, but even they can’t support this bill in its current form. If it is amended, they may change their mind. In the meantime, a hearing on the bill has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 29.