- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 63,419
Failed presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has inserted into the giant Appropriations Bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee,
language that would effectively ban internet-based gambling in all 50 states. Sen. Graham, who failed in his bid to run for president this year, did get support from
billionaire Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. In return for this favor, Graham inserted the internet gambling ban provision into the spending bill,
a measure strongly supported by Adelson because he sees online gambling as competition for his brick-and-mortar casinos.
Sneaky policy in Congress
In what was an underhanded way to make public policy, Sen. Graham slipped the internet gambling ban, quite similar to the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA)
bill that he sponsored earlier this year in the U.S. Senate, along with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the House sponsor of that bill, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).
The RAWA language was inserted into the huge spending bill in the Senate “at the request of Senator Graham,” the RAWA language was placed in the Appropriations Bill,
according to Senate Appropriations Committee spokesperson Chris Gallegos.
Here is the language that appeared in the bill, similar to the key provisions of RAWA:
“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)
Which level of Government should decide?
The Constitution says the state level of government should decide whether internet-based gambling is legal, say advocates of federalism.
This argument was strongly articulated by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, who also stated that allowing the federal government to regulate or ban state-based regulated internet gambling will also allow
it to prohibit the states from allowing the sales of firearms and ammunition online, in violation of the Second Amendment gun rights. These arguments were outlined in the hearing,
held to promote RAWA, in the House committee whose chairman is Rep. Chaffetz. The hearings showed the issue is not one of Democrats vs.
Republicans, because members of both parties opposed RAWA.
SOURCE- FULL STORY
language that would effectively ban internet-based gambling in all 50 states. Sen. Graham, who failed in his bid to run for president this year, did get support from
billionaire Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. In return for this favor, Graham inserted the internet gambling ban provision into the spending bill,
a measure strongly supported by Adelson because he sees online gambling as competition for his brick-and-mortar casinos.
Sneaky policy in Congress
In what was an underhanded way to make public policy, Sen. Graham slipped the internet gambling ban, quite similar to the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA)
bill that he sponsored earlier this year in the U.S. Senate, along with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the House sponsor of that bill, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).
The RAWA language was inserted into the huge spending bill in the Senate “at the request of Senator Graham,” the RAWA language was placed in the Appropriations Bill,
according to Senate Appropriations Committee spokesperson Chris Gallegos.
Here is the language that appeared in the bill, similar to the key provisions of RAWA:
“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)
Which level of Government should decide?
The Constitution says the state level of government should decide whether internet-based gambling is legal, say advocates of federalism.
This argument was strongly articulated by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, who also stated that allowing the federal government to regulate or ban state-based regulated internet gambling will also allow
it to prohibit the states from allowing the sales of firearms and ammunition online, in violation of the Second Amendment gun rights. These arguments were outlined in the hearing,
held to promote RAWA, in the House committee whose chairman is Rep. Chaffetz. The hearings showed the issue is not one of Democrats vs.
Republicans, because members of both parties opposed RAWA.
SOURCE- FULL STORY
