An ambitious piece of legislation that intends to insert the federal government into oversight of legal sports betting is already under fire from its critics and may deal with an uphill climb in a currently divided Congress.

New York Rep. Paul Tonko and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal formally introduced the SAFE Bet Act recently, an expense that would put a blanket ban on sports betting throughout the U.S. unless licensed by the Department of Justice.

The proposed legislation quickly drew pushback from the video gaming industry and one influential lawmaker, Nevada Rep. Dina Titus, who stated it was a "misguided method" to try to pre-empt state regulators.

Not so fast, my pal

Titus' district includes part of Las Vegas, and she co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus in Washington, D.C.

Moreover, despite sharing Democratic Party subscription with Tonko and Blumenthal, and despite seeing their effort as well-intentioned, Titus is bearish about the SAFE Bet Act's prospects in the legislature, particularly now, in the midst of the campaign season.

"It's partially a messaging bill," Titus said Thursday during a gaming-focused event hosted by news outlet Semafor. "I don't see it passing, certainly not this session. Probably nothing's going to pass this session, but we do not want it to get a head of steam moving forward."

Inquired about the SAFE Bet Act sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, @repdinatitus informs @eschor:

"I think that's much better to have self-regulation or state policy, not to have the federal government get involved at this level." pic.twitter.com/3xvmgKxewp

Titus sees a "stigma" connected to the gambling industry - even though it provides jobs and generates tax revenue - that makes it a target for lawmakers. Her choice is to keep the states in control of legal sports betting in the U.S. and to keep federal meddling to a minimum.

The Tonko-Blumenthal legislation also surpasses simply restricts on marketing. Among other things, it would set for different parts of the business, such as how typically a player might transfer with an online sportsbook.

"I don't think that's the way to approach it," Titus said of the restrictions. "I certainly support accountable video gaming. The industry does. They've taken strong actions, returning to the 90s, to control themselves, and I think that's better, to have self-regulation or state guideline, not have the federal government get involved at this level."

The comments from Titus suggest the SAFE Bet Act will have its fair share of opponents in Congress. While passage was never ever a certainty, what does appear specific is that there will be political pushback in some form.

"What the Supreme Court did clearly lay out in their choice ... was that Congress maintains the right to control sports gambling," Tonko stated recently. "So that's what we're all gathered here today to announce, as an effort that we're going to accept."

"It's mind-boggling to me in the conceit of (the feds) saying 'we know more than you do' without dealing with things together that we have already reached out to work on to make things better for our citizens in all the states that legislate sports wagering," - Dave Rebuck 9/19

Titus has battled against federal intervention in the video gaming industry previously, such as by proposing legislation that would reverse Washington's 0.25% tax on sportsbook manage. She has actually also butted heads in the past with Blumenthal over an expense proposing to commit deal with tax revenue to issue gambling programs.

Titus is not alone in her appointments about the winner Act either. In addition to state legislators and regulators who might not want the federal government peering over their shoulders, the industry fasted to pan the legislation.