I wrote to one of my congressman's staffers:
Hi *****,
I hope all is well. I wanted to apprise the congressman’s office of a letter some anti-gaming groups just sent to Speaker Boehner, which you’ll find attached. While no one honestly thinks Congress will pass legislation banning all online gaming – especially in the short time window that is available (prior to states authorizing intrastate gaming) – it is disturbing in the larger context. These are groups that purport to speak for conservatism, yet they are actively advocating bigger government, executive branch expansion, and reduced states' rights.
When these groups complain that the executive branch will no longer read a broad ban on online gaming into the Wire Act, rather than the ban on interstate online wagering on sporting events or contests that is defined in the actual text of the legislation, that is of great concern to me as a REINS-endorsing limited government conservative. The Constitution defines a process by which the legislative branch writes the laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the executive branch enforces them. When groups like these insist that the executive branch perform all three functions unilaterally, they weaken the case for Constitutional government and separation of powers as a matter of principle, while also weakening the principle-based case for REINS (my principle-based case for REINS:
http://www.geoffdavis.house.gov/News...umentID=205179).
In addition, the aims of the letter are harmful to the Commonwealth, as their request would apply to interstate horse race wagering conducted under the auspices of the Interstate Horse Racing Act. Horse racing interests have had enough problems due to prior executive branch overreach on the scope of the Wire Act of the sort these groups champion. It is sad that they advocate compounding this.
Regarding the state-level bills that concern the groups so much, I agree that we don't need a patchwork of state laws with the federal government left holding the enforcement bag, nor should we have states erecting trade barriers against other states. Our founders included the commerce clause in the Constitution for very good reasons and we ought not violate that important principle here. After all, just as our nation would never permit Indiana (for example) to bar automobiles manufactured in Kentucky on the grounds that Indiana could socialize auto manufacturing for the financial benefit of the state, surely we ought not have state lotteries or other instate interests granted federally-enforced exclusive monopolies over online gaming. Additionally, online instant scratch-off lottery tickets -- the functional equivalent of an online slot machine -- would surely compete directly with private businesses in many states.
There is a better way forward. HR 2366, Rep. Barton’s Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act, actually gives these anti-gaming groups what they want, but in a way that respects our principles and our Constitution. Rather than upending states’ rights and limited government principles, we can instead license and regulate interstate horse racing and games of skill like poker in a manner consistent with the commerce clause and limited government principles, while preserving states’ rights with a state ‘opt-out’ provision. I had a great discussion with Grover Norquist on this prior to the 2010 election that you may find of interest (read at
http://poker.blogtownhall.com/2010/0...ne_poker.thtml).
For the Commonwealth, conservatism, consumer protection, law enforcement, and liberty, I ask that Rep. Davis cosponsor HR 2366. I think it’s the right bill at the right time and I hope the congressman will give this due consideration.
Thanks for considering.
Best regards,
Rich Muny
Poker Players Alliance
Vice President of Player Relations & KY State Director