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.

With the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) under attack in the U.S. Senate by Roberto Menendez and in the House of Representatives by Barney Frank, as well as by the World Trade Organization and lawsuits from online gaming lobbies, it seems that the UIGEA’s days are numbered. Don’t be so sure that there will be a nationwide online gambling market, though.

Jim Tabilio, a gambling lobbyist who has been meeting Washington leaders, predicts that many of the larger states could opt out of the market. Both Frank’s and Menendez’s bills have an option for individual states to opt out of the federally regulated online gambling if the UIGEA’s ban is overturned. They have only 90 days to opt out. Tablio believes that larger states, such as Texas and California, because they have such bloated bureaucracies, will not have enough time to reach a decision within the 90-day time limit. With no decision made, the governors would likely choose to opt out. Not being a part of the federal bill then, the states would have the option of pursuing intrastate gambling bills of their own, such as the one proposed by California, where the states would get more of the profits, not having to hand it over to the federal government.

Though Tabilio and other gambling lobbyists see that as a problem, making the legal situation of online gambling in America more confusing and complex, as far as I’m concerned, any time individual states give the finger to the federal government, it’s a good thing. That’s why I love Texas so much, considering they have a clause in their state constitution stating that they joined the Union by choice and can leave anytime they want. In light of the current out of control power-grabbing by the federal government, Texas Governor Rick Perry even had a speech in which he reminded the rest of the country of their right to secede. Here’s the translation. Perry: F.U. Federal Government.

Whether or not certain states opt out of the gambling bills, it seems an almost certainly that there will be some form of legal online gambling market in the United States soon, maybe even within the year. It is a cause for optimism in the gambling community, but I’m going to end this article with an even happier sentence. F.U. Federal Government.