As Scott Shackford
anticipated a couple of weeks ago, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently
introduced a bill that would rewrite the Wire Act of 1961 to
include “any bet or wager” placed via the Internet. Chaffetz and
Graham, who were recruited by casino magnate and GOP mega-donor
Sheldon Adelson to help squash his online competitors, call the
bill the Restoration of America’s Wire Act. I think they (or
Adelson’s lobbyist, who
co-wrote the bill) meant to say the Restoration of America’s
Wire Act Act, since the bill aims to “restore the
long-standing interpretation of the Wire Act.”
The problem, as the Justice Department finally
recognized in December 2011, is that the interpretation Adelson
and his pet legislators prefer is plainly at odds with the text of
the statute, which refers to “bets or wagers on any sporting
event or contest“—language that the Chaffetz-Graham-Adelson
bill,
H.R. 4301, would excise. Furthermore, since the Wire Act was
passed decades before the Internet existed, it is rather
problematic to say that Congress intended to ban online gambling.
H.R. 4301 addresses that difficulty with new language referring to
“any transmission over the Internet carried interstate or in
foreign commerce, incidentally or otherwise.” The bill does not
“restore” anything; it imposes a brand new ban on Internet
gambling. That includes online poker, which undeniably involves
betting even if you consider it mainly a game of skill.
Graham
claims admitting that the Wire Act applies only to sports
betting—a conclusion endorsed
by the U.S. Court of Appeals Court for the 5th Circuit back in
2002—is “yet another example of the Holder Justice Department
and Obama Administration ignoring the law.” If you pay close
attention to a statute’s actual words, according to Graham, you are
ignoring the law. Being true to the law evidentally requires
excising the inconvenient parts.
Equally risible is Graham’s claim that his legislation, which
would block moves toward legalizing online gambling in states such
as Nevada
and New
Jersey, is necessary to protect state autonomy.:
In 1999, South Carolina outlawed video poker and removed over
33,000 video poker machines from within its borders. Now, because
of the Obama Administration’s decision, virtually any cell phone or
computer can again become a video poker machine. It’s simply not
right.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, quoted in the
press release announcing the bill, this argument:
When gambling occurs in the virtual world, the ability of states
to determine whether the activity should be available to its
citizens and under what conditions—and to control the activity
accordingly—is left subject to the vagaries of the technological
marketplace. This seriously compromises the ability of states to
control gambling within their borders.
Since Perry is known as a
10th Amendment enthusiast, his support for the bill may
carry weight among federalists. It shouldn’t. Contrary to Perry’s
implication, H.R. 4301 would not let states decide whether Internet
gambling is permitted within their borders. It would ban online
gambling throughout the country, even in states that want to allow
it. This is a strange sort of federalism.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1dP1QOl
via IFTTT