Most Americans, regardless of ideology, oppose "crony capitalism" or "cronyism." Cronyism
is where politicians write laws aimed at helping their favored business beneficiaries.
Despite public opposition to cronyism, politicians still seek to use the legislative
process to help special interests.
For example, Congress may soon vote on legislation outlawing Internet gambling.
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.
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.
A federal online gambling ban would overturn laws in three states that allow
online gambling. It would also end the ongoing debate over legalizing online
gambling in many other states. Yet some have claimed that Congress must pass
this law in order to protect states rights! Their argument is that citizens
of states that ban Internet gambling may easily get around those laws by accessing
online casinos operating in states where online gambling is legalized.
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.
Many supporters of an Internet gambling ban sincerely believe that gambling
is an immoral and destructive activity that should be outlawed. However, the
proposed legislation is not at all about the morality of gambling. It is about
whether Americans who do gamble should have the choice to do so online, or
be forced to visit brick-and-mortar casinos.
Even if there was some moral distinction between gambling online or in a physical
casino, prohibiting behavior that does not involve force or fraud has no place
in a free society. It is no more appropriate for gambling opponents to use
force to stop people from playing poker online than it would be for me to use
force to stop people from reading pro-war, neocon writers.
Giving government new powers over the Internet to prevent online gambling
will inevitably threaten all of our liberties. Government bureaucrats will
use this new authority to expand their surveillance of the Internet activities
of Americans who have no interest in gambling, just as they used the new powers
granted by the PATRIOT Act to justify mass surveillance.
The proposed ban on Internet gambling is a blatantly unconstitutional infringement
on our liberties that will likely expand the surveillance state. Worst of all,
it is all being done for the benefit of one powerful billionaire. Anyone who
thinks banning online gambling will not diminish our freedoms while enriching
criminals is making a losing bet.
