With less than a month to go until the presidential election (when 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House will also be in play) the subject of an online poker bill at the federal level is either heating up or cooling down, depending on one’s perspective. For those expecting a bill to be drafted and acted upon quickly, the process has been mired in political squabbling that only Washington insiders could ever hope to understand. Proponents of federal legislation in Nevada see the window of opportunity to maintain the Silver State’s preeminence in the gambling industry as closing while competing states move forward with their own plans to set up online gambling intrastate.
A spate of recent news seems to indicate that Senate Majority Harry Reid’s poker bill will be teed up during the lame duck session after the election. Politicians’ pet projects often follow this route before they find their way attached to some other, more significant piece of legislation that is likely to pass. This was the strategy employed when online poker legislation was attached to a broader Internet security bill.
Opponents of the bill that have dug into the details argue that the bill actually limits states rights because it includes a ban on any other type of casino gambling online–other than poker. This is a direct result of the involvement of the large casino operators based in Las Vegas. Allowing states to offer any and all types of traditional casino games over the Internet is seen as a mortal threat to brick and mortar casinos. Poker is different, with a completely different demographic and the major casino operators want a piece of this business.
The battles continue to be drawn along very specific lines between the various interest groups. In Nevada, regulators want to maintain the state’s role as the leading authority in all things gambling while Las Vegas based casinos want to establish a dominant position in this potentially lucrative new industry. However, elsewhere around the country, state legislatures, state run lotteries, and Native American casino interests are opposed to the Reid bill. On this particular issue, the lame duck session may prove to be not so “lame”.