Partisan Politics Responsible for Unregulated Online Gambling
The defeat of Barney Frank's bill designed to supersede the intolerable UIGEA certainly does not signal an end to the battle, and may even assist passage in the long run by forcing lawmakers to identify themselves with one side or the other. Despite heavy public support from many directions, the measure to regulate and tax online casinos reached only a tie vote in committee after the King amendment watered down the original content.
The 32-32 vote in the House Financial Services Committee illustrated partisan politics at its worst, and demonstrated why the Republican Party is so vulnerable in this year's elections. Even though the nature of the bill called for approval from the core Republican elements, which are in favor of libertarianism, small government, and freedom of choice, party members felt compelled to vote alongside far right-wing Representative Spencer Bachus, whose religious right has kidnapped the party's soul over the last decade.
It was Thomas Jefferson who refused to identify himself as a member of a particular party, as inevitably there would be an area of disagreement; Jefferson felt it was his duty to vote his conscience over his political allegiance. Unfortunately, that moral stand no longer exists, as politicians on both sides publicly support issues in which they don't believe due to party pressure.
Frank himself noted, "There is a great deal of discomfort between those on the business end of the Republican Party and those on the social conservative end of the party about this bill. A lot of Republicans wanted to vote for this, but they were pressured by their leadership to vote against it."
Alphonse D'Amato, former Republican senator from New York and chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, called the UIGEA "ridiculous legislation.' He also described Bachus as "full of zeal," which is a nicer way of saying zealot.
One wonders where Bachus's true allegiance lies; whether he believes the demagoguery he spouts, such as asserting untruthfully and irresponsibly that one-third of all college students who have gambled online have considered suicide. After all, what is the control number of students overall who have "considered" suicide? How was the direct relation to online gambling established? And where in the world did he find that number??
Could not the true, behind the scenes scenario be one of money protecting its own? The enormous wealth of land-based casinos is threatened in part by competition from online casinos; even the American Gaming Association does not take a stance against the UIGEA, because it amounts to protectionist legislation for Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and all other land casinos.
Let those Republicans who voted against Frank's bill be castigated by their contituencies; let the religious social conservatives retreat back to their silly, anti-science, fringe groups. The Democrats lose elections because they traditionally represent radical fringe elements, each with their conflicting agendas and lists of desired government "entitlements", while the Republicans have mouthed, if not always delivered, support to the cause of keeping government out of our lives. If religious whackos force reputable men to vote as zealots, then let those would-be reputable men be voted from office.
