If there is any signal that legalizing online gambling in the United States on a federal level is going to be an uphill battle, it would most certainly be the recent turn of events in District of Columbia. At one time appearing to be a shoe-in for regulation, D.C. has lost its bid to become the first in America to offer legalized online poker and casino bets.

Granted, the process of getting legislation passed in D.C. wasn’t necessarily a due process. In fact, two of the three council members who voted to repeal the legislation that would have effectively given the D.C. Lottery a $38 million contract with Greek lottery vendor, Intralot, said it wasn’t so much an objection to online gambling in principle, but rather, an objection to the approval process and lack of transparency thereof.

Indeed, the contract that was made with Intralot was amended at a later date, effectively giving Intralot a greenlight to develop an online casino and poker software platform for D.C. residents. Following a Washington Times report, highlighting several irregularities of how the bill was changed, D.C. Inspector General, Charles Willoughby, was urged to took a closer look at the contract. And while all parties were cleared of illegal wrongdoing, Mr. Willoughby did concede the contractual process was irregular.

Committee on Finance and Revenue Chairman, David Catania, said that considering the “poisoned climate” of the D.C. governmental office and recent guilty plea of former Council seat member, Harry Thomas Jr., it would be a huge mistake to open the floodgates to an industry prone to money laundering and organized criminal activities if placed in the wrong hands given inadequate oversight.

While the original bill’s sponsor, Michael Brown, said he would make a bid to gather six votes needed to repeal the repeal, so to speak, it is very unlikely he will succeed. What’s most likely is that the repeal will be approved by the full council and that neither Washington D.C. nor the federal government for that matter will be passing any definitive legislation to regulate online gambling any time soon.

The government of Ireland is working on legislation to tax online gambling bets placed in the Emerald Isle. It is an attempt to recoup revenue that is currently going overseas. Michael Noonan, the Minister for Finance, says that work is ongoing on the legislation, but is hopeful that something will be completed this year.

The hardest part is figuring out how to capture that revenue. When Irish citizens wager at online casinos, sports books and poker rooms that are located overseas, the transactions are processed overseas under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, out of the authority of Ireland. Taxing those transactions would be difficult for Ireland.

One way Noonan plans to bring in revenue from transactions with foreign companies is through licensing. The legislation being crafted would require any online gambling website to obtain a license from Ireland if they are going to accept bets from Irish customers. In addition, the companies would have to pay a duty on any bets placed by Irish citizens. The amount of duty is not yet known. A lowering of local betting duties from 2% to 1% is partially blamed for gambling revenue in Ireland dropping from €54 million in 2007 to €30 million in 2010.

Every country faces the same problem as Ireland. Due to the borderless nature of the Internet, people can gamble online at a website located anywhere in the world. If the website is located in the country, that government can tax the transaction, but that is difficult to do if the company is located overseas. Noonan is hopeful that the legislation will make major strides toward correcting that problem.

Soon Iowa residents will be able to bet on horse racing online for the first time. On Thursday, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission is expected to approve new online gambling regulations that were passed by the legislature in the last session. Those regulations allow “advance deposit wagering,” which lets gamblers place a bet on horse races if they are not at the track either through telephone or the Internet. In order to place the bet, the person must have already placed a deposit into a betting account.

Insiders say that there are enough votes in the commission for the regulation to be enacted. If so, advance wagering for horse racing could begin on January 1. The change is intended to make horse race betting more accessible. Jack Ketterer, the administrator of the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, said that the new procedure is “for people throughout the state who would like to bet on Prairie Meadows races, but who really have no way of doing so” without making a trip to the track. Many of the details still need to be worked out, such as the framework for the depositing. The commission enlisted the help of a California-based consulting firm to help with the depositing.

Many are skeptical of the plan. Mitch Henry, who heads a group called No Casino Iowa, said that allowing online betting for horse races will see an initial increase in profit, but only because “anytime something can be done online – be it legal or illegal – it will encourage folks who are compulsive gamblers.”

The trade group for Australia’s national internet industry told the government that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be charged with policing online gambling. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) submitted a report to parliament recommending that the regulation and restriction be done at the point of access.

Parliament recently called for a review of the Interactive Gambling Act of 2011 to see how it can be made more effective. The law does not ban Australian citizens from playing casino games online, but it does ban online gambling sites from operating in Australia. The law tasks the ISPs with monitoring the activity to make sure no gambling sites break the law. According to the IIA, that places an unfair burden on the Internet industry and is not even effective.

In the statement, the IIA says that they believe “that the point of consumption, that is, the end user’s device, is the only effective and technically feasible way of controlling access to the Internet.” The IIA also points out that there is no realistic way of protecting minors and other Australians from playing at online gambling websites located overseas. For that reason, instead of prohibition, the IIA recommends federal regulation, where companies can obtain licenses to legally operate in the country.

“Australian online gamblers who participate at offshore sites forego the protection of Australian law and harm minimization requirements when they use offshore gambling providers,” the report said. While some politicians, such as Senator Nick Xenophon, are pushing for a full prohibition of online gambling, others support liberalizing the market and regulating it federally.

We probably write about Donald Trump way too often here on OCS, but he is very talented at inserting himself into the news. Lately he has made it known that he wants to invest in the online gambling industry. As we reported earlier, Trump Entertainment is taking part in a joint venture to create an online gambling site with the Trump name to take advantage of regulation when it happens. That puts him at odds with some, though.

There are many attempts to regulate online gambling in one form of another in the United States, some at the state level and some at the local level, some just on poker, and some on all gaming. Trump supports the bill by Texas Republican Representative Joe Barton, which would regulate all online gambling at the federal level. Trump is lobbying hard for the bill’s passage. Ivanka Trump, executive vice president of Trump Entertainment, says that “it would be a tremendous source of taxable revenue for states or the federal government and an enormous generator of jobs.”

Others aren’t so sure. Maryland Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley sent a letter to the House of Representatives, urging them to vote against Barton’s bill, saying that it would hurt the states. O’Malley says that in Maryland, federalized online gambling could cost the state “the $519 million annually we generate from our state lottery – our state’s fourth largest source of revenue – and jeopardize the jobs and survival of lottery retailers, many of which are small businesses.”

Many other state governors and lawmakers share O’Malley’s concerns. For the states to not be hurt by the federal regulation, the legislation needs to be written in such a way that the states can get a cut of the proceeds. Trump disagrees, saying that federal regulation would be beneficial nationally and at the state level. Trump has a lot of influence in Washington (look at how he has abused eminent domain to build his empire), so it will be interesting to see which side wins the debate.