RSS Feed MenuOnline gambling may not seem all that important. After all, most Americans will never gamble online and, with the possible exception of poker, the experience of gambling online is decidedly inferior to the glitz, excitement and elegance of a well-run casino. But the committee call vote on a recent bill to legalize and regulate online gambling, showed a significant segment of the Republican Party to be out of touch with current realities (which I write about here). The sheer number of Republicans opposing the legalization of online gambling—18 out of 22 ‘no’ votes on the House Financial Services Committee came from the GOP—does give some credence to the negative left-wing stereotypes of the Republican Party as a group of fuddy-duddy killjoys dominated by a small radical religious fringe. Just as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama proved themselves sufficiently mainstream by disassociating themselves with black racists (Sister Soljah and Jeremiah Wright), Republicans showing their serious about attracting swing voters should embrace federal regulation of online gambling.
The facts are pretty simple: Gambling is legal in 48 states and popular enough among the residents of the other two (Utah and Hawaii) that the leading gaming mecca (Nevada) contains casinos that do almost all of their business with Utah and Hawaii residents respectively. There’s no debate anymore over the propriety of gambling; most Americans gamble and only a tiny minority considers gambling morally wrong. Efforts to ban online gambling haven’t stopped anyone from gambling but do impose enormous, unnecessary costs on the banking and credit system.
The problem is that far too many Republicans, including some who have generally been at the forefront of efforts to making financial regulation smarter and less burdensome voted against an eminently sensible measure. Do members of Congress from California (where major Indian-run casinos sit outside every major city), New Jersey (the second state to legalize commercial casinos in modern times) or Delaware (one of two states where team sports betting is legal) really believe that any of their constituents who want to gamble will be dissuaded if government continues trying to regulate online gambling out of existence? In addition, how do Republicans propose to maintain core services without finding some new sources of revenue or raising taxes? Federal taxes on online gambling, although hardly a solution to the country’s problems, clearly have to be on the table.
Quite simply, conservatives have to get on board with sensible measures even when they might offend certain religious elements in the party. Anti-gambling forces lost the battle years ago and shouldn’t have any influence in the Republican Party. The proposals to legalize and regulate online gambling deserve Republican support. Republicans could show they’re serious by giving it.
LFC // Aug 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I’m sorry, but which party is the one that wants the government to control our lives? I get so confused when the GOP talking points are 180 degrees from their actions.
mpolito // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Well, everyone except anarchists want “the government to control our lives” to some degree. It’s just that while they agree on much (i.e. prohibition of homicide) they disagree on just what should be controlled…and when it’s all said and done, the Dems want more controlled. It would be wise to not speak in broad generalizations about the ‘government controlling our lives.’
Carney // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Lehrer is entirely too dismissive of social conservatives (not all of whom, by the way, are religious or motivated primarily by religious tenets). They play a vital role in the GOP coalition, and their arguments against gambling deserve to be not only heard but given great weight, rather than being brushed aside.
How can this piece be considered a serious article, meant for publication in a respected venue, able to persuade others? It outrageously equates sober, traditional values with the hysterical, vicious anti-American vitriol of Jeremiah Wright. It shows no respect whatsoever for the eminently reasonable and well-founded misgivings of millions of Americans about the spread of an addictive and devastatingly damaging vice.
How badly hurt was America when gambling was rarer? Who really suffered as a result? Nobody. The gambling industry has plenty of slick lobbyists who are paid staggering sums to grease its further spread into every community and every nook and cranny of modern life, to hook more unfortunates. We don’t need “conservative” voices to contribute to the problem from inside our movement.
I would also suggest that future Lehrer articles meant for publication be vetted by literates who know the difference between *their* and *they’re*.
Oldskool // Aug 2, 2010 at 1:59 pm
They need Ed Meese to tackle gambling like he did porn in the 80’s. Of course it exploded and the “just say no” to drugs campaign didn’t have much affect either. If they really wanted to put a dent in the deficit and take the legs out from under gangbangers they’d legalize all vices and tax them to death like we do tobacco. Then, they’d stop attracking the finger-waggers and Dems and Indies would fill the void.
DFL // Aug 2, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Private gambling should be permitted but I think it wise for government to get out of gambling, including the myriad lotteries, which tend to cater to people who can least afford to blow their money gambling. Alas, abolishing state lotteries has about as much chance of success as Delaware has of winning the Rose Bowl.
Headlines 08/02/2010 // Aug 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm
[...] The GOP’s Outdated Anti-Gambling Crusade Cancel reply [...]
balconesfault // Aug 2, 2010 at 3:50 pm
If you don’t keep gambling illegal, how are Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff going to grift off of Native Americans?
LFC // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:03 pm
…and when it’s all said and done, the Dems want more controlled.
Such as? I see the Republican views on marijuana(incl. medical marijuana), end of life decisions (Terry Schiavo, anyone?), religion (OK to force CHRISTIAN prayer upon kids in school and support religion with tax dollars), homosexuality (ban gay marriage, tried to ban gay sex a la TX), banning construction Islamic mosques (started in NY, now in multiple places), racial profiling (no problem … unless, of course you’re black or Hispanic), and so on as being pretty controlling. Plus, of course, gambling. Lots of these are personal decisions that impact nobody else.
Other than the fringey hyper-PC lefties, who don’t really have any power in the Democratic Party, I see gun control as the big GOP scary issue.
It would be wise to not speak in broad generalizations about the ‘government controlling our lives.’
“Their controlling your life!” –Glenn Beck
When a party has a long history of trying to regulate morality based upon a specific religion, they are trying to control your life.
Carney // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Oldskool, the explosion you mention occurred under Janet Reno, who deliberately refused to take action during the rise of the Web under the Clinton Administration, despite robust tools at her disposal to stop the spread of obscenity.
Carney // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:09 pm
LFC, you are echoing tiresome whining that conservatives are not libertarians. Yes, conservatives disagree with libertarians on the issues they disagree on. That’s tautological. You’re wasting everyone’s time harping on this.
If conservatives were libertarians, they’d be libertarians. If Christians were Muslims, they’d be Muslims. So what?
SkepticalIdealist // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Carney, I assume you consider yourself a conservative, which means you should care about the deficits. Taxing things like gambling would help reduce that deficit. I can’t believe you’d rather let a few self-righteous zealots run the country just because they happen to interpret a holy text a certain way.
There are almost too many ironies to count in this farce. Not only does the GOP contradict its supposed platform of limited government in the most base and hypocritical way, but it also discredits the notion that they are the party of “personal responsibility.” Preventing people from gambling “for their own good” is nothing more than a function of the nanny state. It’s yet another example of pretentious, presumptuous people assuming the right to tell others how to live their lives, when they don’t know the first thing about them.
A law that only makes sense when you hold a specific interpretation of a specific holy book is inherently sectarian, and therefore inherently unfit to govern people who are not a part of that sect. Public policy demands public reasoning, not sectarian reasoning. Even if you agree with their interpretation that gambling is immoral, it’s bizarre that you would want to force people to follow vice laws because they are not doing it under their own volition. They’re doing it under threat of force, which compromises their free will and robs them of their ability to make the moral choice to abstain from gambling.
I will never understand why some people think themselves to be more moral when they take moral decisions out of the hands of others.
Oldskool // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm
“Oldskool, the explosion you mention occurred under Janet Reno, who deliberately refused to take action during the rise of the Web under the Clinton Administration, despite robust tools at her disposal to stop the spread of obscenity”
I’m pretty sure it had more to do with VCRs than anything else. It would be in your party’s interest to turn lemons into lemonade even if you’re not crazy about either.
CO Independent // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:42 pm
This is not a serious article. Follow the money. The opposition to online gambling is funded primarily by the casino industry, which stands to lose billions in revenue if online gambling is introduced, and by the professional sports industry, which fears corruption will infiltrate the game if online gambling is introduce. Yes, religious conservatives oppose online gambling too, but they are a bit player at the table, no pun intended.
Balconsfault called this one in his post.
Regarding porn, Carney is correct. The explosion in pornography occurred when the Clinton Justice Department announced they would no longer pursue pornographers. In a fortuitous coincidence, this occurred just as internet access was exploding. Now we can have all the porn we want 24×7 from the comfort of our computer screen. And isn’t the world a better place for it? I mean, just look at how much more effective it made the SEC.
LFC // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Carney said… LFC, you are echoing tiresome whining that conservatives are not libertarians.
Absolutely wrong. I’ve never confused the two.
I’m saying that the current crop of wingnuts (as compared to actual conservatives) love to scream how Obama and the Dems are going to control your life (remember the rhetoric about re-education camps?), but in fact they are more inclined to advocate control of personal behavior. That’s hypocrisy, plain and simple. And when the issues impact nobody but those involved, it’s busy bodyism of the worst kind.
anniemargret // Aug 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Carney: “….spread of an addictive and devastatingly damaging vice.”
Please. What about tobacco? What are the social conservatives doing about Tobacco? It leads to devastating illness and death, doesn’t it? Want the government to ban tobacco?
What about promiscuous sex on TV and in movies? Our children are inundated with it. Little girls are encouraged to look, dress and act like prostitutes. Guys, who appear to be adults, act like sniggering adolescents instead of grown mature men. The abortion rate and pregnancy rates of unmarried females and males are directed tied in to this. What about sex education, use of contraceptives? At every turn, ‘conservatives’ say no… What are their practical solutions to this widespread problem?
What about end of life issues? Shall the government for families to keep their loved ones on protracted tubes and machines even when that family knows it is in the best interests to let that person die a natural death? The disgusting display of Republicans running to Congress in the wake of the Terry Schiavo case makes me certain I don’t want social conservatives making decisions about life or death.
So you are worried about gambling? What about eating? Shall we stop the Big Macs and Pizza places because some people cannot stop eating and get obese?
Where does it begin and end?
The best course of action is education. Moderate gambling is no more dangerous than moderate social drinking. Education is vital in sex for our young people. And adults can go back to being adults in their children’s lives instead of acting like teenagers lusting after the next beautiful body on TV or movies. They need to start acting like role models for their children.
Adults can stop ‘having affairs’ so that adultery doesn’t become common – because it leads to breakdown of families and violence. Education and common sense and decent morals enter here.
But in the end, you cannot legislate morality. You can only offer good education and efforts to empower the family. And empowering the family includes social safety nets…something the ‘conservatives’ are not willing to do or support.
ktward // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:40 pm
…18 out of 22 ‘no’ votes on the House Financial Services Committee came from the GOP—give[s] some credence to the negative left-wing stereotypes of the Republican Party as a group of fuddy-duddy killjoys dominated by a small radical religious fringe.
Get your head out of the sand, Eli.
Gambling issues notwithstanding, the GOP today is, unquestionably, dominated by Religious Right voters and the pols who pander to them. For decades now, y’all have been strategically courting these particularly adamant, myopic voters, so now their string-pulling shouldn’t come as a surprise to you. Blaming the Left for the bed y’all made is beyond lame.
That said, I do appreciate that there are some GOP voices left (yours & Knepper’s among them, perhaps) challenging the RR’s now-ubiquitous influence within the GOP. But you had best get a grip on GOP reality if you expect to prove an effective, long-lived counter-influence.
… most Americans gamble and only a tiny minority considers gambling morally wrong.
‘Most Americans’? I’ve NO idea if that’s factually supported, but I’m interested to learn the data source of your apparent certainty, Eli. (For instance, are both the occasional and regular State Lottery participants part of this vaguely-defined ‘gambling’ demographic?)
I, myself, am possessed of only one taxable vice: wine.
That said, I take zero issue with current tax laws that clearly exploit my vice, and potential future taxation is not likely to curb my consumption. Even if it does, I won’t complain.
IMHO, tax the hell out of smokers. And gamblers. And lottery players. And alcohol consumers. Legalize pot and tax the hell out of it. Better our indulgent (if sometimes psychologically compelled) vices should augment tax coffers than our fixed-income Seniors and working poor and our ever-struggling middle class.
On Casinos:
A decade-ish ago, I thoroughly enjoyed an altogether lovely four-day Spring vaca in Vegas: accommodations at the Bellagio, gorgeous poolside weather, fabulous shopping and shows. (It’s since become my mission in life to never miss, if possible, any Cirque Du Soleil production.) I threw away a measly roll of quarters on slots. We meandered through our ’strip’s’ local casinos: Treasure Island, MGM Grand, Caesar’s come immediately to mind. In every one of them, the air was oxy-fresh and free of smoke, players were joyously *recreating*, food and drinks were both delicious and remarkably inexpensive.
About five-ish years ago, I was invited to an ‘upscale’ Casino boat in the Chicago area. Biz event, dinner and gambling. Cuisine & company was lovely. Gambling activities were disturbingly depressing: boat reeked of old smoke with lots of new smoke to boot, players were clearly not at all ‘recreating’– they were demonstrably stressed, as one might imagine of those who are wagering their mortgage payments. Folks who, with eye-stinging poor hygiene, were clearly betting their one last hope.
Within minutes, I cashed in my $200 worth of gratuitous chips and beat it out of there. I later donated that $200 to the local women’s shelter.
I’m not naive.
I recognize that, for a contingent of our citizens, gambling is a disease every bit as destructive to our societal fabric as drug/alcohol abuse et al. We must continue to provide rehabilitative resource for these folks.
But for many– most? anyone got stats?– I suspect it’s simply a hedonistic indulgence that at times proves painful, perhaps, to one’s budget. Like my wine. Tax the hell out of it.
Good luck, Eli, getting your RR-pandering GOP compadres on board.
PracticalGirl // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:53 pm
My main head-spin with conservatives who rail against state gaming laws is that it is in direct conflict with their main piece of rhetorical vomit of the moment: The People Have Spoken. DFL-even though I disagree with your conclusion, I applaud your ideological consistency.
In most states (all? not enough info for me to generalize), gaming laws (especially the Lottery) are a direct result of a majority vote of the people. If the People are so damn smart that we should listen to them on issues as complex as health care reform, why can’t they be trusted with a vote that allows them to do with their entertainment dollars as they wish? It is statistically true that those who can least afford it are most apt to purchase a Lottery ticket, sure. But financial irresponsibility is a poor reason to go against the will of the People, once the People have spoken. At least that what they have been telling me…
PracticalGirl // Aug 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Carney;
We know that jut over 60% of all bankruptcies in the US annually are due to some sort of medical event. The percentage of bankruptcies in the US annually due to gambling? Can’t be poinpointed at this point as adequate info isn’t collected. There have been many good studies, however, that show that “casino” counties have personal bankruptcy rates that are just over 35% LOWER than matching counties without casinos. And, in any case, bankruptcies are far less common in this country than those due to inadequate or no health insurance.
My question of course goes to your moral high-horse and the damage assertion: Which do you think is fiscally worse for an individual: Gambling or lack of adequate health insurance?
It would be nice to see you get intellectually honest with at least the facts, if not yourself.
Claude // Aug 2, 2010 at 10:13 pm
You don’t have to be part of a “small radical religious fringe” to cringe at the site of a 24-hour pawn shop outside a casino. What Eli Lehrer doesn’t understand is that an effective argument at least attempts to understand the concerns of the other side. But he prefers to just vent his disgust at anyone who disagrees with him.
balconesfault // Aug 3, 2010 at 6:28 am
The real question that society has to deal with in prohibiting all measure of vices, be they gambling, drug use (particularly pot), and prostitution:
a) are the prohibitions successful at anything except making criminals out of people who are doing something that they believe the government has no right to intrude in? Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that?
b) do the prohibitions largely serve to make more money for bad people than legalization of the behavior would accomplish? ie – would the violent pimp be out of a job if ladies of ill repute didn’t need him around to buy off cops and bail them out of jail and scare potentially violent johns (since she can’t go to the police if a john abuses her)? would the drug gang who control their turf through violence be out of work if Walgreens sold pot? Is the local bookie who collects debts by breaking fingers displaced by the OTB gaming parlor?
c) how much money is society squandering on dedicating LE resources to policing the vice, and prison cells to holding offenders, rather than taxing the vice and leaving “offenders” out working jobs and paying their own room and board and paying taxes?
d) is there a significant implication to legalization of an activity that just shatters our collective morality (eg – legalization of underage prostitution, or perhaps legalization of heroin sales, or legalization of russian roulette parlors a la Deer Hunter) which moot a-c above?
BaldGuy // Aug 3, 2010 at 9:43 am
balc: “c) how much money is society squandering on dedicating LE resources to policing the vice, and prison cells to holding offenders, rather than taxing the vice and leaving “offenders” out working jobs and paying their own room and board and paying taxes?”
This makes so much sense on a conceptual level, but I know that in our local community drug and alcohol treatment programs are big business, and any suggestion of alternatives is squashed by a politically powerful lobby. In one case a judge responsible for sentencing alcohol offenders routinely mandated an Anabuse program which was locally administrated by a private business owned by his wife! Marijuana “classes” cost several hundred dollars, and the anecdotal evidence suggests that the “counselors” would rather see clients fail and be forced to retake classes than change behavior. These are not government or law enforcement programs — they are private, for profit businesses that have a huge stake in maintaining the status quo.
People should NOT drink to excess and drive, or “recreate” in ways that endanger their community, of course. But most of us are able to indulge in our vices responsibly. For those that can’t, we have a responsibility first to protect the community from their excesses, and to a much lesser extent perhaps protect the individual from themselves. But just seeing addicts and offenders as a revenue stream does little to accomplish either, while successfully blocking any discussion of alternatives in our city.
sinz54 // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:05 am
balconesfault: do the prohibitions largely serve to make more money for bad people than legalization of the behavior would accomplish? ie – would the violent pimp be out of a job if ladies of ill repute didn’t need him around to buy off cops and bail them out of jail and scare potentially violent johns (since she can’t go to the police if a john abuses her)?
In Nevada, brothels are actually legal–as long as they’re sited out in the boondocks far from major cities.
The pimps are still running those brothels. But they’re now running their brothels as legal businesses, complete with regular medical checkups for the ladies (mandated by state law). The ladies work as legal contractors and pay Federal income tax on their earnings. As a result of all this, HIV is virtually non-existent in these legal brothels.
So these legal brothels do a good business–but at least that type of prostitution causes far less harm than other types.
Getting back to online gambling:
The Internet has made everything available everywhere.
The laws against online gambling are just as impossible to enforce as the laws against online porn. If a porn site or gambling site sets up shop in some foreign country, how the heck can the Federal Government stop me from accessing it, without a World Police and draconian controls on my privacy? Is there ANYONE here on FrumForum who doesn’t know how to obtain online porn if they wanted it?
Even online child porn has proven very difficult to shut down. Despite all the Federal Government’s attempts, I know exactly where I can get some online child porn–this very moment–if I wanted it. (HINT: It’s located far from the United States–but on the Internet, “far” is without meaning.)
So what’s the point? Make online gambling legal, but find ways to make it socially unacceptable, as with smoking.
oldskool:
YES, we should tax the hell out of online gambling.
but NO, those taxes should NOT go to general revenues. That would give the Federal Government a vested interest in expanding online gambling, so that they could get more revenue out of it.
In the case of state lotteries, state governments not only tax them but actually do extensive advertising of them to promote them. Now that, I have a problem with.
State governments used to even do TV commercials promoting their lotteries until there was a public outcry about that, just as there was about cigarette commercials a decade earlier.
So any revenues collected by the Federal Government should be used solely for medical purposes. Perhaps they can be used to pay for the new health care reform, which I assume would include treatment of gambling addiction.
Annikan // Aug 3, 2010 at 10:17 am
I think this whole issue has much more to do with the federal prosecution system taking things way way to far. Basically a much better solution would be for federal prosecutors to climb down off their high horses and spot throwing around racketeering charges at anyone who handles money being exchanged. There’s a difference between some internet entrepreneur and the mob.
It seems that we have to choose between two extremes here: either throw the doors wide open and let anything go or hit anyone involved in online gambling with potential 70 yrs in jail.
An earlier commenter noted that wide open online gambling could see corruption creep into sports. Thats a huge concern for those leagues: just look at what happened to Serie A soccer in Italy.
PracticalGirl // Aug 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Sinz-
Sorry to have missed your post yesterday. You make some valid points, but I think the idea of making Internet gambling-something somebody typically does in the privacy of their own home- “socially unacceptable, like smoking” is laughable. And your own example of the availability of the worst, most socially unacceptable form of “entertainment” (and its unfortunate use) seems to counter your own assertion.
And for the record: Like child porn,many, many online gambling options that originate in other countries can be accessed and used by Americans who don’t mind taking thier chances.
Carney // Aug 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm
anniemargret said, “But in the end, you cannot legislate morality.”
This is one of the most threadbare and tiresome cliches around. ALL laws legislate morality. ALL laws restrict personal choices of one kind or another, because society, or at least its lawmaking class, has decided that one particular outcome is morally preferable to another. The very existence of law and government is an expression of the moral belief that order and liberty are better than chaos and tyranny.