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.

If The Barney Frank/Ron Paul online gambling bill becomes law, UIGEA will be repealed and online casino gambling will be legalized and regulated in the United States. Sports betting, though, would still likely be left out.

Yesterday, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (HR 2267), which was concocted by Democrat Frank and Republican Paul, cleared the House Financial Services Committee. By a 41-22-1 vote, the bill to license and regulate online gambling in America passed the committee, paving the way for it to be voted on by the full U.S. House of Representatives.

There are already compromises in the bill, though. Republican Peter King inserted an amendment that emphasizes that sports betting would remain illegal online and offline. King did so to protect the interests of powerful and loved sports leagues in the country, particularly the NFL. King admitted that “the NFL has concerns about gambling.”

To be honest, so do I. Sports betting scandals are terrible for the leagues, the teams and America (just ask the Chicago White Sox or Tim Donaghy). Concerns over game fixing don’t necessarily mean that sports betting should be banned, but it is a legitimate concern.

In any case, the bill passed the House with King’s anti-sports betting amendment. However, that doesn’t mean the amendment will say in the bill. During the full House mark-up, it can still be removed. Another amendment was added by Republican John Campbell and Democrat Brad Sherman. That amendment ensures that online casinos that target U.S. customers would have to be based in America, thus ensuring that the country would profit from the legislation and not lose revenues overseas. Other amendments were added for the protection of players, requiring the online casinos to post the odds of the games, have loss limits and verify the players’ age and location.

The online gambling bill is not yet scheduled for a floor debate and is not expected to be brought to the floor earlier than early September.

Some members of the U.S. House of Representatives are trying to get a federal legalization of online gambling so they can regulate and tax the industry. Such initiatives would overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which – though it didn’t outlaw online gambling – does allow the feds to go after financial institutions used in “unlawful” online gambling transactions. There is currently no federal law that bans online gambling, though it is banned in a few states.

The push to overturn UIGEA and regulate online gambling in America has been led by Democrat Barney Frank (D-MA) and Republican Ron Paul (R-TX). My personal opinion is that Paul wants online gambling legalized because the government has no business telling people what they can and can’t do with their money and Frank wants it regulated because he loves the government controlling and taxing businesses.

Since the Frank-Paul bill was introduced – but not yet brought to the floor –Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced a companion bill called the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act. It has been co-sponsored by Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Frank and John Larson (D-CT).

Last week McDermott’s bill was brought before the House Ways and Means Committee, which is the chief tax-writing committee in the House. Strangely enough, several members of this tax-writing committee – such as Charlie Rangel (D-NY) – have used ignorance of the tax code as defense for tax fraud.

Anyway, last week the committee looked at McDermott’s bill and they seemed unimpressed. McDermott stated that America was simply driving gambling revenue offshore, giving money to foreign countries that America desperately needs. He also said that his bill would generate $72 billion in revenue over 10 years from creating new taxes. Among the new taxes are plans to tax the players on their deposits up front, taxes on the casinos on the wagers themselves, taxing the players’ winnings and more. Of course, there would also be many different types of licensing fees for the casinos, just like for current brick and mortar casinos.

Two representatives from Nevada weren’t too big on the bill, which isn’t surprising, since they have to look out for the interests of Las Vegas. Republican Dean Heller said he would keep an open mind, but he is concerned about online gambling’s impact on the Vegas strip. He is also against the “deposit tax” that would take money away from players up front, whether they win or lose at the casino. The other Nevada representative on the committee, Democrat Shelley Barkley, said she supports the legalization of online gambling, but not the taxing of it – at least not right away.

I know what you’re thinking? What? A Democrat is wary about adding a new tax? How can that be? Also surprising for a Democrat, she made a good argument. She wants to legalize and regulate the new online casino industry and let it develop first before taxing it. “Because the industry is not even established yet, I can’t imagine how we can know with any degree of certainty how the special tax would affect operators or customers,” she said. Instead, she says that it should be legalized and regulated, but should not be looked at as a source for revenue. Wow, now she’s sounding like a conservative.

No decision was made on whether to move forward with the bill. This is Washington; things move slowly.

Well, President Obama in a speech five days before the election said that they were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Well, he’s right, but not in the way that he intended. I believe that Obama wants to fundamentally transform America by doing away with the private sector, capitalism and basically democracy. He wants to shift a rather centrist nation far to the left. However, what he has done is transformed the nation by shifting it to the right.

As the government has tried to grab as much power as possible and grow as large as possible, there has been rebellion among the American people. Equally as important, though, is how it has affected the Republican Party. The Republican Party as it existed in 2008 was more liberal than the Democratic Party in the days of President John F. Kennedy. As a result of the current administration’s policies, though, Republican voters have learned that now we need conservativism more than ever and that big government, high taxes, and high spending policies can’t be accepted, whether it’s coming from a Democrat or a Progressive Republican, such as George W. Bush, John McCain and Charlie Crist. As a result, McCain and Crist are likely to lose in the primaries for their senate seats.

But what about president? At last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Ron Paul won the straw poll for presidential preference. Paul, who is a Republican with very Libertarian ideology, won 31% of the vote, with Mitt Romney (a centrist) coming in second with 22%. Romney had won the straw poll in each of the last 3 years. Sarah Palin received 7%.

No one knows if Paul will run for the Republican nomination. He did in 2008 and didn’t get nearly as many votes in the primary as Romney or McCain. Times have changed, though, and his anti-spending message resonates now more than ever.

So what does this mean for online gambling? If Paul was elected president, it would be a good thing for the online gambling community in America as well as anyone who wants an expansion of brick and mortar casinos. Paul is co-sponsor of Barney Frank’s bill in the House that would overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Like the issues of spending and regulation, there has been a public shift in sentiment regarding gambling as well. States like Alabama that have traditionally been against gambling, either online or in casinos, are starting to come around, according to recent polls. As the economy continues to struggle and many states are facing budget deficits, adding revenue from gambling makes sense now more than ever. It would also lead to an increase of jobs, something that is badly needed, since 9.7% of the country is still unemployed according to the White House (and a much larger number according to many economists).

Before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that Ron Paul has always been considered unelectable in a national election. Though times have changed, maybe they haven’t changed enough for a man like Paul to sit in the Oval Office. However, his surge in popularity shows a shift in attitude in America, which is just as important. With Americans demanding less regulation, more freedom for private business, and a balancing of the state and federal checkbooks, online gambling legislation could be a safer bet now than ever.