ACTION

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.  

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.”