The truth behind the online gambling ban

One publication wrote it this way:

It was a dark, dank night in Washington D.C., when the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was ferreted into law on the back of a Port Security Bill. The bill sponsored by House by Reps. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and backed in the Senate by Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, rejoiced with religious fervor, as it was touted the most important family values legislation EVER considered by lawmakers.

This video covers the topic so well, I don’t know what could reasonably be added. If you ever wanted to know who paid what to whom in order to represent which special interests in order to outlaw online gambling, here’s your answer.

Disclaimer: I’ve never gambled online, knitted sweaters or rooted for the NY Yankees. I do, however, support the right of people to do what they want as long as it isn’t hurting someone else.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • http://allencountylp.blogspot.com/ Mike Sylvester

    This is a great video and we need to get more information like this out to the voters…

    The Republicans are NO DIFFERENT then The Democrats they replaced.

    Mike Sylvester

  • http://www.777.com/ Jack

    The problem is well known and the video provides great examples of the hypocrisy of politicians.
    One more point not covered here is that with this new law the respectable online gambling operators like party gaming and 888.com will leave the scene providing smaller companies to enter the market with much less reliability for gamblers that will not stop whatsoever to play on real money.
    The question is – how long will it take to fix this law and regulate online gambling?

    I will not be surprised if harrah’s mentioned here will suggest to get license for online gambling within a year or two.

  • Devious David

    Good video. Harrah’s was bought the next day after the law passed. What a coincedence! I’ll bet they had NO IDEA that that law was going to pass the night before!

    What’s going to happen is the law will be relaxed in a year or two and online gambling will be regulated. That way all the present competition will be dead and only the big casinos will be able to offer online gambling. That’s the point of this legislation – to make Republicans look high and mighty moralistically and to give their favorite special interests special advantage. It’s called fascism. Thank god for Republicians.

  • http://myspace.com/phuturesound Derrick

    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.” –P.J. O’Rourke

  • undercover_anarchist

    Harrah’s bought this legislation, but the LP wants no restrictions whatsoever on what corporations or individuals can give, nor what politicans can accept.

    This is what we get.

    Newt Gingrich was on BookTV today. He is in favor of banning all PAC contributions to incumbents. It isn’t the 1st amendment rights of the PACs that are in question – it would be a House and Senate rule for their members to not accept them.

    “Libertarians” would be against such a self-imposed rule.

    And again, THIS is the government that we get.

    The Libertarian solution is for Congress to start following the Constitution and behave like the legislative body of a limited government would.

    Right.

    We have a government bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporate interests, and the “Libertarians” would have it no other way.

    This is what I call BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANISM, since so long as the campaign cash flows in, we will always have big spending, big government, big corruption.

    Oh yeah, and “freedom”

  • Matt

    That’s about the best thing I’ve ever heard out of Newt. I don’t think it violates libertarian principles, either.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Actually, Newt is not all that bad. He is very intelligent and well-read. I heard him talking appreciatively of various non-conservative historical movements, including the original Populist movement (which was NOT socialist, but agrarian), etc. I mean, he’s not a libertarian by any stretch, and those who know me know that I could not possibly be a fan. But I think he has integrity. Which is a helluvalot more than you can say for the average D or R.

  • http://www.harrahs.com Bill

    “Harrah’s was bought the next day after the law passed.” – Devious David

    Actually they were not ‘bought’. Two private equity firms; Apollo Management Group and the Texas Pacific Group put in a bid to buy Harrah’s for $15.05 billion. This amounts to $81 a share and at the time Harrah’s was trading for $66.43. People suddenly realized that Harrah’s is more than likely an undervalued stock and took advantage of buying while it was still low. Form your own opinions- but one might think that a buyout bid might have been why Harrah’s stock ‘soared’ on October 2nd, as opposed to a bill banning online gambling.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org/ Kris Overstreet

    What’s missing is a transcript for those of us on dialup who can’t watch the videos…

  • undercover_anarchist

    The buyout bid was certainly influenced by the passage of the law.

  • paulie

    Harrah’s bought this legislation, but the LP wants no restrictions whatsoever on what corporations or individuals can give, nor what politicans can accept.

    I agree, except for corporations – their government endowment of personhood, and their government shield of limiting liability, is a huge problem. They shouldn’t participate in politics at all. Individual shareholders and board members already have the power to contribute money on their own, and I agree that the amount rightly falls under freedom of expression, and thus can not be artificially limited.

    Unions of tax consumers (government employees) and unions which use government coercion to force their way should likewise be prohibited from participating in politics. Taxpayer money ought not be spent to agitate for more taxpayer money.

    The big problem with money influencing politics is that there is so much government to influence. If government did not have so much control over our lives, why would anyone bother?

  • paulie

    Actually, Newt is not all that bad. He is very intelligent and well-read. I heard him talking appreciatively of various non-conservative historical movements, including the original Populist movement (which was NOT socialist, but agrarian), etc. I mean, he’s not a libertarian by any stretch, and those who know me know that I could not possibly be a fan. But I think he has integrity. Which is a helluvalot more than you can say for the average D or R.

    Intelligent, yes.

    Integrity, no.

    http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

  • paulie

    Newt Gingrich was on BookTV today. He is in favor of banning all PAC contributions to incumbents. It isn’t the 1st amendment rights of the PACs that are in question – it would be a House and Senate rule for their members to not accept them.

    “Libertarians” would be against such a self-imposed rule.

    Not necessarily. I’m all for evening the playing field for challengers a bit. Incumbents often shake down campaign contributions from people and groups who are afraid what legislature they might pass otherwise. PACs are a big part of this insidious problem.

  • paulie

    Of course the big government-corporate racket wants as big a piece as possible of online gambling, or anything else. This is hardly surprising.

    It’s good to have proof like this, though.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Yeah, but there’s no way to limit government’s influence on money without first limiting money’s influence on government.

  • FrankT

    “The buyout bid was certainly influenced by the passage of the law.” -undercover_anarchist

    No way in hell. Two totally separate events with totally different implications altogether.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    It’s a chicken and egg problem.

    I’m more inclined to think there is no way to limit money’s influence on gooberment without first limiting grabamint’s influence on money.

  • paulie

    And another comment missing in this thread, that’s three for three so far – what’s going on?

  • http://google.com comment_mongrul

    Corruption… Stephen Gordon must be pruning the comments so sway things in his favor.

    LAME!

  • paulie

    Looks like it may have been a technical problem, they’re back up now.

  • Chuck Bronson

    Yeah, I provided a response to this video on YouTube a couple days before it was linked here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7aozO0zEM)

    Been Libertarian since I was able to vote (2003)and had affiliation changed to Indie because the LP wasn’t recognized in Oklahoma at one point. The LP philosophy is easy to sell – I’ve got my co-workers and the girlfriend interested in it. I, of course, state that Libertarians have different views on how fast or slow government should be reduced. I mainly use economic argument (abolish min. wage, income taxes) but I have found people who sympathize with us on the drug war but want to take incremental steps toward complete legalization.

    I’ve been in the local newspaper several times covering Social Security, War on Drugs, etc. People tell me they read the editorial section more just to hear what I have to say.

    Yeah, my presentation is the video wasn’t spectacular. I goofed up a bit, even squinted haha. But I feel that I did OK for try #1

  • Chuck Bronson

    read what I have to say* heh

  • Roy P.

    Certain businesses had something to gain by ending internet gambling… They, of course, aided the politicians wanting to end internet gambling. The end of internet gambling, of course, had unavoidable financial effects.

    The fact is… None of this AT ALL proves internet gambling was ended for the wrong reasons. THE FACT IS… Many of these internet gambling sites were CROOKED and MANY were overseas… just stole money from Americans… off it went overseas… poof!!! You really don’t think this was a HUGE problem for the economy??? There was no “politically correct” way to shut down only overseas sites. THIS NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!

    EVERY decision made by government is going to benefit someone, hurt someone else, have some financial effects somewhere…. GROW UP and realize it’s just a fact of life. I’m sure not saying US politicians haven’t become corrupt as heck. Big money has completely taken over “our” government. But, I think this law was NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE USA.

  • Dan H

    The free market corrected the problem of ‘CROOKED’ gambling sites. There are plenty of legit, publicly traded companies for gambling these days. Only idiots would gamble on crooked sites, and idiots don’t deserve any protection.

  • Internet Control

    23… no way to shut em down? Sure there is… but then new laws have a nasty habit of hurting formerly innocent folks…

  • Roy P.

    “but then new laws have a nasty habit of hurting formerly innocent folks”¦”

    If you were gambling in a state that doesn’t allow it, YOU WERE NOT INNOCENT. You were committing a crime and criminals were making a huge profit.

    Allowing internet gambling is foolish. Much of the money WAS GOING STRAIGHT OUT OF THE COUNTRY. I’m all for allowing some gambling in the USA… Let’s be smart, keep it regulated, and AT LEAST KEEP THE EASY MONEY IN THE COUNTRY and know where it’s going. You’d think anybody could understand the need for that…