Sen. Lindsey Graham Introduced RAWA to the U.S. Senate Back in April 2014
In an essay titled “Internet Gambling Ban: A Winner for Sheldon Adelson, A Losing Bet for the Rest of Us,” former U.S. Representative Ron Paul criticized the president of the Las Vegas Sand Corporation and his crusade to end online gambling in the United States. Congressman Paul, who is known for his outspoken political opinions, published the essay on his official online website, RonPaulInstitute.org.
Paul goes charges that the supporters of Restoration of America’s Wire Act are greatly expanding the power of the central government, while claiming to be championing states rights. He also says such lawmakers, if successful, would be driving online gambling underground, thus giving money and power to the criminal element they claim to be combating.
But it’s the charge of exchanging politics favors for campaign contributions that might cut the deepest. Though Ron Paul does not mention Restoration of America’s Wire Act, it is obvious to everyone the bill he’s describing. Ron Paul writes, “It is an open secret, at least inside the Beltway, that this legislation is being considered as a favor to billionaire casino owner, Sheldon Adelson. Mr. Adelson, who is perhaps best known for using his enormous wealth to advance a pro-war foreign policy, is now using his political influence to turn his online competitors into criminals.”
What Is Cronyism?
Like an Enlightenment-era philosopher, Ron Paul defines his terms. He defines “cronyism” as cases in which “politicians write laws aimed at helping their favored business beneficiaries“. If a politician writes a law to suit the limited whims or largely to the advantage of their politic donors, then those politicians are engaging in cronyism.
Cronyism is what Ron Paul says his fellow Republicans, Lindsey Graham and Jason Chaffetz, are engaging in by championing Sheldon Adelson’s anti-online gambling cause.
Ron Paul describes exactly to whom he refers when speaking of favoritism. He also accuses them of doing the very thing they are claim to want to avoid: giving aid to the criminal element. Paul writes: “Supporters of an Internet gambling ban publicly deny they are motivated by a desire to curry favor with a wealthy donor. Instead, they give a number of high-minded reasons for wanting to ban this activity. Some claim that legalizing online gambling will enrich criminals and even terrorists! But criminalizing online casinos will not eliminate the demand for online casinos. Instead, passage of this legislation will likely guarantee that the online gambling market is controlled by criminals. Thus, it is those who support outlawing online gambling who may be aiding criminals and terrorists.”
Sheldon Adelson Concerned about Exploitation
Sheldon Adelson claims he wants a 50-state ban on online gambling because of his concern for problem gamblers and their families. In one famous recent example, he even hearkened back to his childhood and seeing rich men take advantage of poor families–and suggests he’s trying to help the needy avoid exploitation. That case might hold water if Sheldon Adelson had not made more money than any other human being in the history of the world through casino gambling.
Forbes estimates Adelson is worth about $38 billion, making him the 8th-richest person on Earth. Almost all of that money came from LVS’s casino operations, which no doubt attract as many gambling addicts as any other casino. By that logic, Sheldon Adelson has made more money off of gaming addiction than anyone else in the history of the world. Though the 80-year old gaming executive might be sincere in his concerns about online gambling, it’s no stretch when Adelson’s political opponents accuse him of hypocrisy.
Graham and Chaffetz
As for US Senator Lindsey Graham and US Representative Jason Chaffetz and their allies on the RAWA bill in Congress, the charges of cronyism are hard to evade. The two men must know that the bill has less than a 5% chance of being passed and less of a chance of being signed into law, but they continue to push for its passage.
They argue they are championing states rights, yet they are seeking to ban online gambling in all 50 states, essentially forcing the puritanical gaming laws of South Carolina and Utah on states like New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware, who want to legalize the practice. Graham claims New Jersey is making it easy for gamblers in South Carolina to gamble on their smartphones, but Graham is obviously unaware (or ignores) the fact that New Jersey gaming technology restricts play to those holding devices inside the state of New Jersey.
Ron Paul tackles that very point in his essay. Paul argues that such arguments turn the Constitution against itself, when he writes, “Even if the argument had merit that allowing states to legalize online gambling undermines laws in other states, it would not justify federal legislation on the issue. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to regulate activities such as online gambling. Arguing that ‘states rights’ justifies creating new federal crimes turns the Tenth Amendment, which was intended to limit federal power, on its head.”
Still, these national lawmakers seem intent on pushing the law through the Judiciary Committee in either house of congress. Sheldon Adelson is the largest political donor in the US electoral system, having spent $100 million on the 2012 election and vowing to spend even more in 2016. It makes good sense for politicians to do his bidding, because no one makes better campaign contributions than Sheldon Adelson. Whether it is more or less cynical to champion a law that has little chance of being passed is up to the reader.
About Ron Paul
Ron Paul is best known for his two runs for the Republican nomination for U.S. president in 2008 and 2012. Representative Paul gained a significant following by speaking bluntly about his libertarian views on government. In most of the televised debates among GOP candidates, Ron Paul was voted the winner. In several debates, including those with up to 9 candidates, Ron Paul garnered 55% of the votes among Republican viewers. That prompted FoxNews to begin to edit portions of the debates to take out Ron Paul’s best moments, because the network preferred other Republicans to win the debates.
Despite the lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the network most Republicans watched, Ron Paul continued to poll strongly, because his views in many ways were traditional in their criticism of big government. Whether one agreed with the Texas congressman or not, one could respect that he had a logical point of view which applied to all the issues, whether they were economic, social, or political in nature. Ron Paul wanted smaller government, fewer laws, and less taxes–and he meant it.
What Is a Libertarian?
A libertarian is someone who wants the government to provide for the national defense, but few other things. Libertarians want few laws on the books and they want the government as small as possible–therefore, out of citizen’s lives.
Libertarianism through the generations has been associated with political anarchism. For instance, in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930’s, the anarchists political party was called the Libertarian Party. “Political anarchism” does not mean social disorder or disintegration, but a society in which the people live without constant interference by government and “the law”. Anarchists call for little or no government, but people still living decent and moral lives without the need of coercion. Of course, those who harm others must be punished and taken off the streets, but the list of crimes is smaller, because libertarians would wipe off the books those activities (such as gambling) which don’t harm another person.
Such activities fall under personal responsibility–not moral codes. That is the point Ron Paul is trying to make in his essay, “Internet Gambling Ban: A Winner for Sheldon Adelson, A Losing Bet for the Rest of Us“: the federal government shouldn’t tell people what to do in the privacy of their own homes. If a gambler is not harming anyone, he or she should be allowed to gamble. It is a provocative, aggressive, and unconstitutional act for the federal government to tell citizens whether they should gamble or not in their own private homes.
