Garden State Gambling?

March Madness is in full swing, and everyone from President Obama http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3991859 to your officemate is following the bracket action. Many also have money riding on their choices in pools that are illegal almost everywhere in the U.S.

A New Jersey legislator would like that to change.

State Senator Raymond Lesniak (D-Elizabeth) has sued the U.S. Justice Department to overturn a 1992 law that bans sports betting everywhere but the four states that signed up for permission at the time: Nevada (of course), Delaware, Montana and Oregon.

By one estimate, sports betting could yield $10 billion annually if New Jersey allowed it. That's a jackpot anytime, but most especially when the economy is slow.

The lawsuit argues that a 1992 law that bars New Jersey from sports betting violates the Constitution's commerce clause because it discriminates against states that didn't ask for permission to allow that betting at the time the law was passed. Legal experts tell me that argument is weak. (The Justice Department hasn't responded publicly to the suit.) But other states may want to improve their odds of attracting more gambling: the Associated Press reports at least 14 are looking to expand slots or casino action to earn more revenue during the economic crisis.

Some background: gambling in the U.S. generally is state regulated; as a result, laws vary widely. Compare Utah, where you can't even host a poker game at home, to neighboring Nevada, and you get the idea. Federal law, meanwhile, seeks to ensure that potential gamblers in an anti-gambling state don't cross state lines in a way that makes the prohibition on gambling ineffectual.

Lesniak's lawsuit may not go anywhere but professional sports leagues, long fiercely opposed to betting on their games, may be loosening their opposition to all forms of gambling as well. When NFL owners met recently, they reportedly planned to consider a proposal that would allow NFL-branded lotteries – something the other major sports leagues have been permitting for a few years. http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/61848 How significant is this decision? Consider the consequences for ballplayers who have bet on games, like Pete Rose http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498 or "Golden Boy" Paul Horning – though, interestingly, you won't find it here http://www.packers.com/team/players/hornung_paul/
Then there's Broadway Joe Namath, forced to divest his "Bachelors III" bar (back then, Roman numerals were a mark of a classy establishment) when the NFL objected to its gambler patrons. Even alleged dice games at Namath's east side apartment came up during the press conference. http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082646/index.htm
Is the NFL's re-examination of sports lotteries just a tweak of its anti-gambling stance? Or is the lure of additional gambling-related revenue a siren song, not just to New Jersey, but to the leagues, too?