The online gambling news in the United States has not been promising over the past few months. First, the State of New Jersey attempted to become the first state in the U.S. to allow online gambling within its jurisdiction.  The law was heavily supported by Governor Chris Christi, who helped push it forward.  The bill passed through the State of New Jersey legislature only to sit on the desk of the Governor for what seemed to be an interminable period of time.

Finally, word started seeping through the media cracks that Christi was backpedalling on his support of the online gambling bill in New Jersey because it was not politically propitious for him to support the law.  Sure enough, his decision became official about two months ago – Christi vetoed the bill that would have made online gambling news – it would have allowed New Jersey to become the first state to permit online gambling within its boundaries.

While Christi was fumbling the online gambling legislation, the District of Columbia took the thunder from the State of New Jersey and surprised everyone by ramming a bill through its legislature that allowed for online gambling within its district.  This law was supposedly set to take effect on December 31, 2011.  But – HOLD EVERYTHING! – a recent editorial article by the Washington Post has shed light on some impending matters that could in a significant way hinder the implementation of this piece of legislation.

The online gambling news of the day is not good, as reflected by the article from the Washington Post.  The bill, which was an amendment to the D.C. Lottery, would offer online gambling within the confines of the District of Columbia. It was introduced solely by Counsellor Michael Brown and the mayor of D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, was never consulted on the matter, a factor which led to raised eyebrows in the community.  

Furthermore, it was discovered that Brown was employed by the legal firm Edwards Angell Palmer and Dodge (EAPD) that assisted in the drafting of the amendment.  The clients of this law firm include companies that provide gaming equipment, software and other gaming products as well as casino owners.  This, quite obviously, is a serious conflict of interest that could have a profound impact on the implementation of this law – more bad online gambling news for the supporters of this legislation.