As passage of the Massachusetts gambling expansion bill becomes more likely, the focus moves from the three casinos and the slot parlor to smaller issues. On Wednesday, members of the state House of Representatives will debate a number of amendments that have been proposed. The bipartisan amendments would have a great impact on the gambling industry and on the state’s economy.

This morning, House Democrats are privately discussing 154 different amendments to the casino bill. Fifty of those amendments were offered by Republicans supportive of the bill, with the rest by fellow Democrats. Among those amendments are incentives for casinos to hire legal Massachusetts residents, creating a nonprofit charity casino, and banning the simulcasting of greyhound racing, according to The Herald News.

Several amendments by Republicans called for verification of legal status. A pair of amendments call for the casinos to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to ensure that employees and job seekers are not illegal immigrants. Another amendment would also check the status of any casino customer who wins more than $600. The bill already requires a check to make sure the prize winner is not delinquent on child support payments. The amendment would widen the scope to also check for immigration status. Another amendment would create a two-year waiting period between a politician holding elected office and then joining the gaming commission.

Though it’s not known how many amendments will make the cut, most insiders believe that the bill will pass the legislature easily. A similar bill passed without much opposition last year, only to be rejected by Governor Deval Patrick. The governor has said that he will accept the current bill. Like in most states, the 2010 election led to a lot of new Republican seats in the Massachusetts legislature, but most of those freshman Republicans support the bill.

On Wednesday, top lawmakers in Massachusetts said that debate on casino legislation will be delayed until September. In a joint statement, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray said that they need more time and will not begin debating gambling expansion until after Labor Day.

Lawmakers were unable to get a deal done last year because DeLeo and Murray wanted gambling expansion that included adding slots to racetracks. Governor Deval Patrick, however, opposed that idea and only wanted to allow casino construction. When the legislature gave him a bill that included both, he sent it back and the bill died. This year, lawmakers are trying again and DeLeo had said that he hoped to pass the bill by the end of July.

Now, however, both the House Speaker and Senate President say they need more time to write the bill and get a response from the public before they can vote on it. The debate will be pushed back to at least the middle of September, in part because there are many more important bills under consideration as well. According to the Associated Press, that includes legislation overhauling the state’s court system as well as a bill that would make human trafficking a crime.

Whoa, wait a second. Human trafficking is not a crime already in Massachusetts? Okay, I agree. They need to pass that bill right away. That’s more of a priority than casino expansion.

The Joint Committee on Economic Development will continue to review gambling legislation prior to that, but the full House and Senate will not do so until after Labor Day, allowing more time to craft the bill and let the public read it and react.

In the controversial subject of gambling expansion, it seems that everyone has an opinion. Lawmakers in Rhode Island have gone and done something rare in this day and age: They will let the people decide.

I know, I know. It’s just crazy. They’re acting like the government is supposed to work for the people or something. Late yesterday, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing a voter referendum on gambling expansion. Hours later, the state Senate passed the bill. The bill now goes to Republican Governor Donald Carcieri, who is expected to sign it. If he does, that sets the table for a voter referendum during the November election.

The gambling expansion at issue involves to existing state-licensed slot parlors, Twin River in Lincoln and Newport Grand in Newport. If the referendum is passed, the slot parlors could be adapted into full-fledged casinos, including blackjack and other popular casino table games.

The bill passed the House on a 62-12 vote and the Senate on a 21-14 vote. Representative Peter Petrarca, a Democrat, stated that he was excited about letting the people decide because they “are intelligent enough to know what they want to do,” thus contradicting the official Democratic party platform.

Not everyone is excited about it, though. Fellow Democrat Senator Teresa Paiva, who represents Newport, isn’t a fan of gambling expansion in her community. Many lawmakers expressed concerns for possible detrimental effects on the community, such as in increase in gambling addiction.

In the end, though, the lawmakers did the right thing. There are pros and cons to everything and in this case, they’re letting the people decide. Of course, this is also a clever way of protecting themselves politically. Gambling is a controversial issue and these lawmakers will be able to avoid responsibility for the outcome of the vote because they didn’t decide; the people did.

Rhode Island is seeking gambling expansion in part because Massachusetts is considering the same and they are worried about losing gambling customers across the border. In this tough economic climate, many states are looking to gambling expansion, including some considering legalizing and regulating intrastate online gambling.

The state of Massachusetts has been working on gambling legislation for some time and the current bill would make online gambling illegal in the state. The bill’s latest version has been introduced by Robert DeLeo (I know what you’re thinking, but no, it’s not the Stone Temple Pilots bassist).

DeLeo, who is Speaker of the House, has called for a vote on the bill within the next two weeks. However, he is facing some opposition from his governor, fellow Democrat Deval Patrick, who wants public hearings on the legislation first. DeLeo says that the issue has been discussed enough and besides, “we’re Democrats, so that means we’re not supposed to care what the people want.” Okay, I made up that quote, but you get the point.

The gambling bill that DeLeo has proposed will create licenses for two full casinos, with each paying $100 million for the license, as well as four slot machine licenses, which will cost $15 million each. The bill is being touted as a job-creation bill, though clearly opening slot parlors will not create many jobs. The main reason behind the push for legalized gambling in Massachusetts is the tax revenue and licensing fees, which will help a state whose budget is in the red.

The gambling legislation contains some bad news for online gamblers in the state, though, because it will make that activity illegal. The bill would make it a crime if anyone living in Massachusetts “knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, internet, local area network… or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information.” Anyone convicted of such a heinous crime as spending your own money online can face up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

The reason for this is clear: Lobbyists for the brick and mortar casinos that may soon be legalized in Massachusetts don’t want any competition from online gambling websites, so they have convinced the lawmakers to ban that competition. Sounds like a good deal. If only Wal-Mart could get Congress to ban online shopping, especially those bastards at Amazon.com, they would make a lot more money.

So it seems that this is politics as usual and your average citizen may get punished because politicians are more concerned with satisfying their lobbyist friends than serving their constituents. Of course, this is Massachusetts, so I would expect nothing less.