Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) remains adamant that global warming is responsible for world terrorism. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) blames state-legalized online gambling.
The campaign to prohibit states from legalizing online gaming for their residents (funded by one of the richest casino owners in the world) is based on hollow arguments in favor of legislation known as “Restore America’s Wire Act (RAWA).” Introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the bill would roll back a series of state laws that not only allow for online gambling but for the sale of lottery tickets, as well.
The effort to pass the legislation began after New Jersey and two other states passed laws that allowed their residents to participate in regulated online gaming. Sheldon Adelson, the owner of the Sands Casino empire, pledged to “spend whatever it takes” to overturn state laws to protect his empire and Adelson turned to Washington, D.C. to get the job done. His lobbyists drafted legislation that was promptly introduced, funded an AstroTurf group and then he demanded that his bought and paid for congressional allies move the bill.
With a straight face, the supporters of this partial Internet gaming ban argued that gambling was dangerous, conveniently ignoring the fact that a casino owner was the primary funder of the legislation. They argued that children needed to be protected from the possibility that a cell phone or iPad could be turned into a casino. But perhaps the most specious argument was made by Sen. Lindsey Graham who claimed that Internet gambling was funding terrorism. This is fear mongering at its worst.
It is important to note that the Internet is filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of sites where you can bet and gamble online. Some are traded on the European stock exchange, others are housed in Antigua or Costa Rica and still others are registered in Russia. The Chaffetz bill does not affect any of these websites. Not one.
The bill only aims to ban sites regulated by the states. To suggest state regulated gambling sites are engaged in funding terrorism is nothing short of McCarthism. Does Mr. Graham and his allies mean to suggest that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has engaged in and covering-up illicit activity? Somehow we doubt that Graham would make such an argument directly to the New Jersey governor’s face.
Yet, despite the outrageous nature of the argument, some are still making it. Sources on Capitol Hill report that an upcoming hearing in the Chaffetz controlled House Government Reform Committee will focus almost exclusively on the money-laundering argument.
Members of the Committee need to beware of the bait and switch. While law enforcement is concerned about the proliferation of overseas-housed gambling sites, they have yet to argue New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware are engaged in a criminal enterprise. Remember, the Adelson-supported legislation doesn’t touch overseas websites — just those made legal and regulated by the states.
The terrorism argument is a red-herring and part of a campaign to use any possible arguments to help Sheldon Adelson use the power of Washington, D.C. to protect his brick and mortar gambling empire.
Leave a Reply