ACTION

When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his run for the presidency he had limited support but one of his donors was none other than Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.  That should come as no surprise.  After all, Graham is the chief sponsor of Adelson's legislation to outlaw is competition -- state regulated online gaming. 

New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada have all exercised their power under federalism to legalize online gaming for their residents.  Other states like Illinois and Georgia sell lottery tickets online.  Adelson views this as competition for his brick and mortar casino empire.  His lobbyist, according to the Washington Post, drafted legislation to override state law and the bill was introduced by Sen. Graham.

After conservative groups and conservative champions like Mick Mulvaney noted that the bill trampled on the Constitution, was an example of cronyism and would ultimately promote efforts to regulate the Internet, the bill seemed dead.  Then Graham insert language into a major spending bill that just passed the Senate.  

The Daily Surge notes:  

Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson has found a way to ban internet gaming by using his friends in Washington to bury a provision into an appropriations bill that will ban internet gaming and gambling so that his casino can increase his profit margin.  Adelson is using his close friends in Washington to sneak a provision in an appropriations report to short circuit the legislative process, because he can’t get Congress to agree to passing his legislation through the traditional legislative process. This provision can be called the “Adelson Earmark.”

Last year, Sen. Linsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced versions of the so called “Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) at the behest of Adelson.  It was reported that a lobbyist the Las Vegas Sands, Adelson’s casino, employed wrote the bill for Sen. Graham and Rep. Chaffetz.  According to The Hill, “draft legislation to ban online gambling was obtained by The Hill last year. The document’s metadata revealed that a lobbyist for Las Vegas Sands wrote the bill.”

This bill is an attempt to rewrite a federal law, the Federal Wire Act of 1961, to ban most forms of online gaming and gambling that is legal in some states.  A hearing was held on March 25, 2015 where opponents of the bill raised the issue that this new legislation would violate federalism.  Traditionally the states retain the police powers to regulate activities with a state’s borders. The new law is unnecessary, because states are perfectly capable of policing themselves and either allowing or not allowing online gaming and gambling.

According to the Online Poker Report the bill does the following:

The Department of Justice’s current position on the Wire Act as it applies to online gambling is that the Wire Act only applies to online sports betting.

The use of the term “restoration” in RAWA’s title is a misnomer, as the original Wire Act, passed in 1961, could not (and did not) speak to the use of the Internet as a wagering medium.

To better appreciate what an actual “restoration” of the Wire Act would resemble, refer to Michelle Minton’s recently-published paper that articulates the original legislative intent of the Wire Act.

The bill received a chilly reception from Capitol Hill because it was a naked attempt to favor one gambling interest over another.  The motivation of casino magnate Adelson was not to protect consumers of online gambling and gaming from harm – he wanted to keep the gambling and gaming within the confines of his brick and mortar casino.

News broke on April 26, 2016 on Gambling Compliance that the Senate Report on the CJS Appropriations bill contains language that is a back door attempt to pass RAWA.

One paragraph in a 141-page Senate spending bill endorses the prohibition of Internet gambling, but it is unclear whether the language will boost efforts to overturn the historic 2011 opinion which opened the door for states to legalize online wagering.

The provision is buried on Page 59 of Senate Report 114-239 of the “Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2017” (CJS Approps) and states the following:

Internet Gambling.—Since 1961, the Wire Act has prohibited nearly all forms of gambling over interstate wires, including the Internet. However, beginning in 2011, certain States began to permit Internet gambling. The Committee notes that the Wire Act did not change in 2011. The Committee also notes that the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that ‘‘criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe.’’ Abramski v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2274 (2014) (internal citation omitted).

If RAWA was to become law, then the regulated gambling and gaming industry in the United States would be banned.  The federal law would overturn the decisions of many states to allow this type of activity.

Because the full House and Senate has no appetite to pass RAWA, here is how the proponents of the bill will attempt to use insider influence to get this bill buried in either the CJS Approps measure or a Continuing Resolution at the end of the year.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee Chaired by Texas Rep. John Culberson will be holding a mark-up on the bill next week.  Culberson should reject this crony giveaway to a billionaire.  

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is carrying water for casino-owning billionaire Sheldon Adelson, has announced he will be hosting a press conference tomorrow with former Rep. J.C. Watts (who is also a paid lobbyist for Adelson) and a handful of conservative organizations to push for his nationwide ban on states legalizing online gaming for their residents.  Nearly 25 conservative and liberty-minded groups have come out in opposition to the Chaffetz bill.  This afternoon, the American Conservative Union (ACU) blasted the groups that are selling out constitutional principles.  ACU Executive Director Dan Schneider issued the following statement reminding social conservatives that support for the Constitution must take precedent over their opposition to gambling:

Social conservatives all understand that gambling harms some people.  The only question for us is if the heavy hand of the Federal government should be brought to bear in this instance or whether the 10th Amendment to the Constitution should permit states to exercise their police authority.  

It is deceitful to imply that any bill in Congress would or could ban online gambling. There are already many gambling opportunities which are legal and widely available, but left untouched by the Restoration of America's Wire Act. Fan Dual and Draft Kings are just two examples. Similarly, people have been legally allowed to bet on horse racing for many years, and that wouldn't change under this bill.

As strong supporters of the 10th Amendment, the American Conservative Union does not see the kind of broad-based harm to justify Federal intrusion into the rights of states to govern themselves.  We must never forget that when we grow the power of the Federal government to limit people's freedoms, we also empower it to mandate other aspects of our lives.  From the Little Sisters of the Poor to those who wish to feed the hungry in their communities, Americans are now required to violate their conscience precisely because we have failed to reign in the Federal behemoth.  

Moreover, it does not make sense to allow some types of online betting while prohibiting others.  It’s not Congress’ job to pick winners and losers.  Using the Federal government to target certain competitors may be very good for the profits of some favored businesses, but it is by no means an appropriate way to set policy.

Those who are supporting the latest efforts to bring the Federal government into this arena ignore the inevitable results: gambling will continue online both domestically and on sites run by operators in the Caribbean, China, and Russia.  The Web has become a place where many vices flourish but banning certain US companies from this space cedes market dominance to foreign countries and dubious sites. 

Although we understand the substantial downsides to irresponsible gambling, it is not a proper use of the Federal government to preserve the profits and success of a single company’s business plan. 

Conservatives recognize and understand that each state should set its own policies under the rights guaranteed by 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Conservatives trust the states to know what is right for each state.  Furthermore, conservatives trust our fellow Americans to understand that all people should be treated equally under the law with favoritism toward none. 

Schneider is spot on.  The Tenth Amendment empowers states to make their own decisions.  Conservatives and libertarians don't have to agree with those decisions but should respect them.  They should also oppose any and all efforts to gut the Bill of Rights -- especially to please a crony businessman who just wants to eliminate one form of competition for his billion dollar empire.  

Members of Congress are attempting to use a 1960s-era law governing organized crime and sports betting to regulate one of the Internet-age's favorite pastimes: online gambling. New analysis by Competitive Enterprise Institute consumer policy expert Michelle Minton delves into the history of the “Federal Wire Act” and why it was never meant to apply to online poker in the 21st century.

“Anyone concerned about over-criminalization or federal government encroachment on states rights should beware of this campaign aimed at eliminating online gambling," said Minton, author of “The Original Intent of the Wire Act and Its Implications for State-based Legalization of Internet Gambling,” published by the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"Because anti-gambling lawmakers have repeatedly failed to pass a stand-alone federal ban on Internet gambling, they are now attempting to stop states from legalizing and regulating that activity," said Minton. 

“Back in 1961, Robert Kennedy wanted to cut off the mafia’s profit stream, especially its most profitable activity, their gambling racket,” Minton added. "This is clearly a different goal than what lawmakers are trying to curb today."

President Obama's Department of Justice stated in a 13-page memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel that the Wire Act only applies to sports gambling. In response, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have wrongly accused the Obama administration of re-writing the law, and they seek to pass a new law extending federal regulatory reach.

As Minton notes, before Members of Congress trample on the Bill of Rights, they should at least have a basic understanding of the history of the issue at hand.  Thanks to the Minton report, they now do. The last thing Congress needs to do is to trample on the Tenth Amendment to protect the profits of a Las Vegas billionaire.  

Former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is warning that efforts to prohibit states from legalizing online gaming is a form of corruption.  Speaking to Human Events, Abramoff warned that legislation pushed by billionaire Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson is a form of bribery.  Adelson has pledged to "spend whatever it takes" to enact the ban and has hired an army of lobbyists to see it done.  News reports suggest he will write a $100 million check to the GOP over the next few months, money that could help grease the skids to get the legislation passed:

Washington’s most notorious lobbyist told Human Events that the effort by gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson to outlaw online gambling is corruption. Adelson has crossed the line, but he is not alone, said Jack Abramoff, a former Washington operator and author of  “Capitol Punishment: The hard truth about Washington corruption from America’s most notorious lobbyist.” Abramoff served 43 months in federal prison for activities related to his lobbying. In addition to his media and speaking appearances, he comments on Washington events and people at his website: abramoff.com. Adelson is the CEO and chairman of Las Vegas Sands, a $14 billion-a-year gambling conglomerate and a major contributor to the Republican Party.

In the 2012 election cycle, Adelson is the man who stepped into keep the presidential campaign of former speaker Newton L. “Newt” Gingrich afloat, enabling him to come back and win the Georgia primary and seriously challenge the eventually nominee former Massachusetts governor W. Mitt Romney. After Romney was the GOP nominee, Adelson supported him, too. In the 2014 election cycle, Adelson has given Republicans notice that if they want his support, they need to pass a ban online gaming. To organize this effort, he created a front group, The Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, has gathered up a roster of strange bedfellows, such as Republican Texas Gov. Richard J. “Rick” Perry, former Republican New York governor George Pataki, as well as, Democrats, such as Massachusetts Attorney General Martha M. Coakley and former speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown. The pressure to ban Internet gambling comes as Adelson is getting ready to stroke a massive check to fund the final mile of the GOP’s campaign to win the Senate in November. Some Capitol Hill whisperers put the check at $100 million based on the plans Republican strategists presented to Adelson. The political world is full of similar examples of businesses or industries using politicians to improve their own situation, Abramoff said. “It is a line that everybody is crossing all day,” he said. “Everytime an individual contributes money to a public official and then asks that politician to do something, you have crossed that line—that is the essence of D.C.—it is not just Sheldon Adelson.” Abramoff said he wanted to be careful in his phrasing regarding Adelson. “I don’t know all the details,” he said. “But, in general, if someone is giving money and asking for things back that is crossing that line—and unfortunately it is going on all over the place.” It is bribery. It might not be statuary bribery, but it is bribery, giving a public servant money, he said “I don’t know Sheldon Adelson, I only know what I read about him,” he said.

“But it seems to me that he has been very active politically with significant money before he jumped into this Internet gambling thing,” he said. “I don’t see any reason to believe that this is the reason he got active or gave money in the past,” he said. “I think it was more related to Israel and conservative issues.” The move against online gaming is new turn for Adelson, he said. “Obviously, this relates directly to his business and he is hiring lobbyists to protect his business,” he said. Adelson may profess to have traditional or other reasons to oppose online gaming, he said. “But, this has a major impact on his land-based casinos—or at least, he feels it does.” Then Abramoff was actively operating in the capital, he worked against banning online gamble because he believes the Internet should be free from government control, he said. The former president of the Massachusetts College Republicans said there are two reasons why he opposed the ban. “I didn’t want to see the government regulating the Internet, except for national security reasons,” he said. The second reason was that given that there were already land-based casinos, the real concern was being able to protect children from going to the sites to gamble, he said. The Adelson bid to outlaw online gaming is not really what he considers crony capitalism, he said. “It is different from what we have seen with the Obama administration, where the donors use their political connections to get the government to bail them out, give them loans, give them huge grants, give them contracts, and that kind of thing.” It could be that plying the government to outlaw your competition is a cousin to crony capitalism, he said. “Frankly, it is under the category of corruption.”

Ten conservative organizations are protesting legislation designed to help one of the richest men in the world warning that it violates federalism, opens the door to regulation of the Internet and is an pure example of crony capitalism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), have introduced legislation known as the Restoration of America’s Wire Act as a way to helping billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson stamp out competition coming from states that have legalized online gaming.  Adelson's minions have testified that the movement in the states will have devastating impact on Las Vegas and the Sands Corporation's bottom line.

Led by David Williams, the President of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the letter to Congress notes that “TPA has many concerns with the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, which would essentially ban Internet gaming across the country,” said Williams. “This legislation goes too far by interjecting the federal government in what has traditionally been a state issue. Additionally, the legislation would not stop online gambling and would instead embolden criminals to prey on consumers in a black market that is typically operated abroad with little oversight. I encourage the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to stand strong against this gross overreach by the federal government.”  Williams concluded, “this legislation is also a backdoor attempt to regulate the Internet.

The complete letter sent to Congress reads as follows:

Dear Chairmen Goodlatte and Leahy, and Ranking Members Conyers and Grassley,

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing to express our deep concerns about
the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (H.R. 4301), which would institute a de facto ban on internet gaming in all 50 states. The legislation is a broad overreach by the federal government over matters traditionally reserved for the states. H.R. 4301 will reverse current law in many states and drastically increase the federal government’s regulatory power. As we have seen in the past, a ban will not stop online gambling. Prohibiting states from legalizing and regulating the practice only ensures that it will be pushed back into the shadows where crime can flourish with little oversight. In this black market, where virtually all sites are operated from abroad, consumers have little to no protection from predatory behavior.

Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet, opening the door for increased Internet regulation in the future. By banning a select form of Internet commerce, the federal government is setting a troubling precedent and providing fodder to those who would like to see increased Internet regulation in the future. We fear that H.R. 4301 will begin a dangerous process of internet censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by calculated international infringers while constraining the actions of private individuals and companies in the United States.

H.R. 4301 also creates carve-outs that exempt certain special interests from the federal government’s reach. This amounts to the federal government picking winners and losers – choosing select industries or private-sector businesses to succeed at the expense of others, which is at odds with free-market competition.

In total, H.R. 4301 is an inappropriate and unnecessary use of federal powers that infringes on the rights of individuals and states. We applaud you for standing against this government overreach and preserving the principles of federalism and free-market competition that underscore American democracy.

Sincerely,

Joe Jansen, Alliance for Freedom
Steve Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute
Michelle Minton, Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Matt Kibbe, President, FreedomWorks
Coley Jackson, President, Freedom Action
Carrie Lukas, Managing Director, Independent Women’s Forum
Andrew Langer, President, Institute for Liberty
Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute
David Williams, President, Taxpayer Protection Alliance

CNN Senior Producer Kevin Bohn
April 20th, 2012 - 11:32 PM ET

The Adelson family continues to be the major benefactor behind the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich's candidacy, Winning Our Future.

While Nevada casino mogul Sheldon Adelson - who has donated $7.5 million to the group - did not give more in March, his wife Dr. Miriam Adelson contributed an additional $5 million last month, according to a report filed late Friday night with the Federal Election Commission. All totaled she has given $12.5 million and the family has given more than $20 million.

The family's contributions to Winning Our Future are a major reason the group has been able to continue operating. In total the group has raised $23 million.
[...]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/adelson-family-gives-more-to-pro-gingrich-super-pac/