Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Wants Internet Gambling Legalized
First it was Barney Frank, now enter 2008 Republican US Presidential candidate Ron Paul to the list of those who want the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act repealed.
This is Carrie Stroup reporting for Gambling911.com.
Ron Paul voted against the UIGEA in the first place when it was passing through the house under a different name. In fact, here is a transcript of his speech made prior to voting on the bill:
(Note: Dr. Paul was one of 17 Republicans who voted against the bill. He is the only Republican who voted against it now serving
on the House Financial Services Committee.)
Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 11, 2006
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed
that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that
protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.
The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this
case, we are putting barriers up.
I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve
the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are
some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.
But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet,
it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't
get rid of it.
Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't
going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other.
But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which
is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling.
I think it is pretty stupid, to tell you the truth.
But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things
worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted
religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet?
* [Begin Insert]
H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government
has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill
will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile
``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law.
Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not
operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners
and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be
forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into
organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the
profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will
actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective
in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by
organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.
Ironically, Ron Paul is poised to become the choice of the Christian Right.
Ron Paul is a veteran. He is a physician. He currently represents the 14th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives, a seat which he has held since 1997. He previously represented Texas’s 22nd district in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985. Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. He is the former national chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine’s "Conservative Index." He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.
But will he be the candidate of the Christian Right? By the Christian Right’s own criteria, their candidate ought to be Ron Paul.
You can bet on all the 2008 Presidential Candidates here. Sportsbook.com should have odds up on Ron Paul in the coming days.
----
Carrie Stroup, Gambling911.com
Originally published April 26, 2007 7:54 pm ET
