Never have political principles been more heavily scrutinized than they are right now. And despite the re-election rates of incumbents, the story is told in Congress’ bottom-of-the-barrel approval ratings, the rates of retirements in successive election cycles and the kinds of candidates being elected to Congress today. Principles matter, and the public is paying attention. But some members of Congress seem to show more loyalty to the well-heeled political class than to those principles that got them elected — and that kind of political “tin ear” is dangerous from both a political and a public policy perspective.
The public will have ample opportunity to see those “tin ears” in action, as that lack of philosophical fidelity will be on display today. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will be holding a hearing titled “A Casino in every Smartphone — Law Enforcement Implications” in an effort to placate Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s number one legislative priority: an effort to prohibit states from legalizing online gaming for their residents by passing federal legislation, the so-called “Restoration of America’s Wire Act” (RAWA).
A bit of history: In 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice interpreted the Wire Act to apply only to sports betting, opening the door for states to sell lottery tickets online and legalize online gaming within their borders. Mr. Adelson, whose business had made its own unsuccessful attempt at online gaming, pledged to “spend whatever it takes” to reverse the ruling. His team of well-heeled lobbyists drafted legislation that was introduced in the House and the Senate. Thankfully, strong opposition from a unique coalition of the right and the left appears to have stalled the legislation.
Groups like the FreedomWorks, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and the Institute for Liberty (the organization I run) have protested the measure as an attack on the Constitution. These organizations have sent letters to Congress calling RAWA, among other things, “an outright assault on federalism.” The legislation tramples on the Tenth Amendment by banning state regulation of online gambling — further chipping away at the balance between state and federal governance.
The bill would overturn state laws already on the books in three states and would prohibit states from selling lottery tickets online for their own constituents, rolling back at least another six state laws.
Groups like the Fraternal Order of Police, National Governors Association, Democratic Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators and the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries have all announced their opposition to the bill, as well.
But if you were to look at the witness lists from the first two hearings on the bill, you’d never know that there was opposition from the Left, the Right, anywhere. What’s more, you’d get the most bizarre picture of this bill. Witnesses have even made outrageous claims that New Jersey’s online gaming regime somehow benefits terrorists and money-launderers.
We expect another dog and pony show at the next OGR hearing later this week, since the chief sponsor of the bill is chairman of the committee.
Sheldon Adelson represents the interests of a handful of brick-and-mortar casinos in Las Vegas that want to make sure all gaming is done in the actual casino — and they’re betting heavily on being able to ram through a piece of legislation that serves to benefit them and them alone, the very essence of cronyism.
They argue that there is a potential problem with the spread of gaming outside the safety of casinos, yet anybody who has been to Vegas knows that gaming on a phone, in many cases, is far safer financially when done in the safety of one’s home or on one’s phone. Congress needs to reject cronyism that is a legal effort to force more people into casinos at the price of freedom and federalism.
Andrew Langer is president of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative public policy advocacy organization. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
