Who dropped the ball on Internet poker legislation?

The fact that there’s tension between U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and Dean Heller on the issue of Internet gambling has been clear for some time. But it was brought into stark relief during a fundraiser Reid held in Las Vegas recently for former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who’s looking to return to Washington.

If John Ensign were still in the Senate, Reid told the gathering, he’d have already passed the Internet gambling bill.

The remark was a stunningly candid indictment of Heller, who was appointed to his seat after Ensign resigned in the wake of a sex scandal. And it presaged the increasingly bitter war of words between the two senators over federal regulation of Internet poker, a move that could benefit Nevada companies seeking to enter the lucrative market.

Up until Christmas, the government said the Wire Act of 1961 prohibited all gambling over the Internet, from sports betting to poker. But then the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a new interpretation of the law, saying that only sports betting was illegal.

Immediately, states began to move to legalize Internet gambling, especially poker, which is a worldwide, billion-dollar enterprise.

In Washington, lawmakers irked by the Office of Legal Counsel’s fiat declaration that Internet gambling was not against the law sought to introduce legislation to essentially overturn that opinion, explicitly outlawing gambling on the web. And Reid saw an opportunity: write in an exception for Internet poker.

Working with Republican Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, Reid crafted a bill. In May, he asked Heller to round up 13 Republican votes — votes critical to overcoming a filibuster.

Months passed. Heller told reporters he was talking with his party’s leaders and with his Senate colleagues. Finally, last week, Reid’s office told Heller he needed to gather those votes by this week, in order to try to pass the bill during a brief work session before the November elections.

Heller wrote to Reid’s office – after the deadline had passed – and said, “As discussed, it would be beneficial for the House of Representatives to first address this issue and then proceed with Senate action. Any change in this strategy jeopardizes the passage of the issue in both Chambers.”

As discussed?

Reid’s office responded with uncharacteristic vehemence, saying it was a “fiction” that any House-first strategy had even been under consideration. Reid himself, in a strongly worded letter, accused Heller of dropping the ball.

“In May, you have agreed to help me cement Republican support for the bill in the Senate. Since then, you have been unable to garner the necessary Republican votes to pass this bill,” Reid wrote.

“I did not want this issue to become political in nature, but I cannot stand by while you abdicate your responsibility as a U.S. senator representing Nevada,” Reid added. “Nevadans deserve someone who will fight for them. Not someone who is willing to stand by and suggest that others should fight for them.”

Heller took exception to the letter. Chief of Staff Stewart Bybee said Heller couldn’t lock down commitments for votes because even a draft version of the legislation is still undergoing changes. And he defended the House-first strategy, saying it had been discussed.

But if that’s true, it was very quiet. Heller does not appear to have mentioned it publicly in any of the stories written about the issue up until he wrote his letter to Reid. When I asked Bybee whether any written evidence of those discussions exists – emails, memos, letters, even a Post-It note stuck to somebody’s computer – he said no, but insisted that there was a verbal agreement.

Reid disagrees, to put it politely.

Bybee says Reid’s deadline, and letter, have made the quest for votes harder. “Progress is being made, and there’s still work to be done,” he said. “But jamming the timeline and putting an artificial deadline does not help the process,” he said.

As somebody who struggles against deadlines, I’m tempted to agree. Only I also recognize that deadlines focus the mind and one’s efforts: At some point, you either have the copy – or, in this case, the votes – or you don’t.

I asked Bybee if perhaps the task Reid had given to Heller was too big for anybody to handle. Are there just no Republican votes in the Senate for the idea of legalizing web poker in America? Is the opposition so entrenched that even Daniel Webster or Henry Clay couldn’t sway the nays?

No, Bybee replied. It’s still possible to pass a bill.

“I absolutely think that there is an opportunity to get to that number” of votes, Bybee said. “There are ways to move forward. It’s not an easy process. It’s never been an easy process.”

No, it’s certainly not. But the clock is ticking – and a lot of states are looking to become the new home of Internet poker.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.