People in the gambling community are worried. I’ve read it all over the gambling blogs and in the gambling forums. I’ve seen the worried tweets. Governor Chris Christie still has not signed the online gambling bill passed last month by New Jersey’s legislature. Since he hasn’t signed it, people are fearing the worst.

A lot of it is due to unreasonable expectations. Many of the people paying attention to the online gambling bill are closely following legislation for the first time. They know that the bill has been available for Christie to sign for 25 days now, so he should have signed! Things don’t move that fast in politics. Though in Washington, 2009 and 2010 saw Congress fall in love with the idea of passing a bill and then finding out what’s in it, that’s not a normal or rational way of doing things. Legislation is a deliberate process. It takes a long time from the time a bill is introduced for it to even be voted on in a committee. By the time it reaches a full floor vote, the legislation is so old that those covering it are sick and tired of the topic (I spent an entire year following Barney Frank’s failed online gambling legislation, even though I predicted it would fail).

Once the legislature passes it, people expect it to suddenly become a fast process. It doesn’t usually work that way. Just as the legislative branch takes their time considering any new laws, the executive branch does as well. In 25 days, Christie hasn’t yet done anything with the online gambling bill, but that is not outside of the norm.

It is also worth noting that Christie doesn’t have to do anything with the bill. Some in the gambling community seem to think there is a ticking clock for the gambling bill to be signed into law. The truth is that there is a ticking clock, but it is on the side of gambling proponents. In the state of New Jersey, once a bill has been passed by both houses (the Senate and the General Assembly), the governor has 45 days to act on the bill.

There are four actions that the governor can take. He can sign the bill, which makes it law. He can conditionally veto the bill with suggested amendments, in which case it is kicked back down to the lawmakers for them to consider his changes. He can absolutely veto the bill, which requires a 2/3 vote to overturn. He can also do nothing. If he does nothing, after the 45-day period is over, the bill becomes law. Governors often opt for that route if the legislation is something they don’t love but don’t oppose enough to veto.

It is my belief that 20 days from now the online gambling bill will become New Jersey law without Christie’s signature, but we will have to wait and see. Some people think that Christie will veto the bill due to his political aspirations, but that doesn’t make much sense to me.

It’s true that the traditional Republican stance on gambling has been one of opposition, but Christie isn’t a traditional Republican. He is a small-government activist beloved by the Tea Party movement, which makes him more in line with Libertarian-leaning Republicans than with the GOP. He also represents a state that is pro-gambling and has already signed pro-gambling bills into law. The theory that he doesn’t want to anger the Republican establishment by signing a pro-gambling bill is laughable.

Even if Christie hadn’t already signed pro-gambling bills, he wouldn’t be worried about what the GOP thinks of him. Christie doesn’t need the GOP establishment if he runs for the White House in 2012. If he elects to run, he will do so despite the GOP establishment. Traditional Republicans ran John McCain in 2008 and would opt for a guy like Mitt Romney in 2012. The voters, however, are looking at guys like Christie. Even if some voters resent the passage of online gambling bills, they won’t resent it enough for it to sway their opinion of Christie as president.

Christie doesn’t have a presidential platform yet, because he hasn’t even announced that he’s running, but I would imagine his platform would involve repealing Obamacare, lowering taxes, cutting federal spending, reducing and eliminating federal agencies and other fiscally conservative ideas. Those are huge ideas that voters will either be strongly for or strongly against. Therefore, a much smaller issue like online gambling isn’t going to sway voters with so many bigger issues on the line.

So while much of the gambling community stresses out about Governor Christie’s political ambitions, his silence on the online gambling issue and his inaction so far, I’m not worried. It is possible that Christie will veto the bill, but I would be shocked if he did. In any case, the perceived delay in making a decision on the bill does not carry an ominous sign. Relax, everyone.

For the record, I defied most of the gambling community by saying that Barney Frank’s online gambling bill would fail. It did. I defied most of the gambling community by saying that Harry Reid’s online poker bill would fail. It did. Now I’m telling you that Christie will sign this online gambling bill. Let’s see if I’m right again.

Today the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed in 2006 as part of the SAFE Port Act, officially takes effect. What does that mean for online gamblers in the United States?

Not much, to be honest. The law makes financial institutions responsible for blocking transactions related to “unlawful” online gambling, though it doesn’t outline what is unlawful. UIGEA does not constitute a federal ban on online gambling and no such ban exists, though some states do have a ban on the books. Players cannot be punished under UIGEA; only the financial institutions can.

A result of the law is that many online casinos, sportsbooks and poker rooms have stopped accepting American customers, afraid that they or the players won’t get paid by the banks. However, most of those online gambling sites had already made the move and left the American market. In a sense, though it was not yet in effect, players have felt the effect of UIGEA for the last 4 years. Another effect is that VISA and MasterCard block transactions to and from online gambling sites, but again, they made that move before today. In a sense, the UIGEA taking effect today only matters in a symbolic nature, because it has affected the American online gambling market since 2006.

To some, it may seem surprising that the federal government would seek to control the financial industry in such a way and take liberties away from the people, but America has moved a long way from its roots and no longer resembles the collection of free states that the Founding Fathers created. It started in the early 20^th century under Woodrow Wilson, when the government expanded its power in a time of war. The Wilson administration controlled public opinion using a propaganda machine that would later be copied by Nazi Joseph Goebbels and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against the government. Many practices, such as the banning of books and prohibition of alcohol, were done in the name of protecting the people.

In the 1930s, FDR followed in his footsteps, imprisoning political dissenters, running internment camps for German and Asian citizens, and unleashing a New Deal economic policy that prolonged the Great Depression all in the name of an expansion of government power. Again, it was for the good of the people. Now we have the Obama administration taking over the healthcare industry and the financial sector. It is, of course, for the good of the people, to save us from another recession.

In between we had Harding, Coolidge, Reagan and a few others who attempted to take control away from the government and give it back to the people. The result in each instance was great economic prosperity. That is why there is now hope for a complete repeal of UIGEA and legalization of online gambling. Massive government takeovers always leads to a backlash and right now you can see it in the Tea Party movement. That is why I wrote earlier that the Tea Party movement is the best chance we have for a repeal of UIGEA. A Congress with many pro-gambling Democrats and pro-liberty Republicans would do the gambling community well.

Yesterday, I exposed the myth that Democrats are for online gambling and Republicans are against it. Even Barney Frank, who is leading the charge to legalize and regulate online gambling, didn’t vote against UIGEA. The truth is, the Democrats and Republicans stand together in opposition of online gambling.

This may come as a surprise, but in recent years there hasn’t been a whole lot of difference between the two parties. Both have favored big government, but for different reasons. Both have had out of control spending, but they spend money on different things. The Democrats were against online gambling because it’s something they can’t control and Republicans were against it for mostly moral reasons – seeing gambling as a potentially destructive habit.

Things are changing, though. You may have heard of the Tea Party movement sweeping the nation. It is a conservative movement that strays from the current Republican party and is focused on the principles of the Founding Fathers – the original conservative Republicans. The Tea Party embraces almost a Libertarian form of Constitutionalism and wants a small government that will stay out of people’s lives. As you might imagine, such a mindset is good for online gambling legislation because the Tea Partiers believe that the government has no right to tell you what you can and can’t do with your money.

Tea Partiers are putting pressure on the legislature, but just as importantly, they’re electing small-government candidates. Look at the recent Republican primaries and you will see the establishment Republican candidates losing (or trailing in the polls) to the Tea Party small-government guy. Rand Paul’s win and Marco Rubio’s annihilation of Charlie Crist that forced Crist to drop out of the primary and run as an Independent are the most recent examples.

If Tea Party Republicans continue to gain power, it brings the perfect storm together for the push to legalize online gambling at a federal level. That is because it allows the Republicans and Democrats to join together on the issue, this time in support of online gambling. The Republicans would be for the legislation because it takes power from the government and gives it back to the people and the Democrats would support it because it gives them another industry to regulate and tax. The Democrats rarely turn down an opportunity for tax revenue.

For that reason, fans of online gambling in America should support the likes of Paul, Rubio, JD Hayworth and even small-government Democrats like Mark Critz.