Oregon Congressman Changes Mind About Online Gambling
Posted on: May 20th, 2010 10:20 am | By: Jeremy SchruteIt seems that U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has changed his mind about online gambling. Four years ago, he joined the majority in voting for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Though the bill doesn’t actually ban online gambling (a fact reinforced by a recent Supreme Court decision), it does allow the federal government to go after financial institutions that are involved in transactions that are considered “unlawful” internet gambling transactions. Which transactions are unlawful is anybody’s guess – that’s one of the problems with the law – but many people believe it only applies to states that have banned online gambling.
Though he voted for a government restriction of online gambling in 2006, Blumenauer now says that he was wrong to do so. Yesterday he released a statement saying that the United States is missing out on gambling revenue that could help states and the federal government with their budget problems. In addition, he believes that allowing online casinos to operate in the U.S. would create jobs.
Blumenauer also suddenly realized that restricting online gambling is hypocritical, since fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries are exempt from UIGEA’s rules. So Blumenauer has finally seen the light. Good for him. I wonder who pointed it out to him (maybe he’s been talking to Ron Paul).
There is a popular misconception that Democrats are for legal online gambling and Republicans are against it. They say that UIGEA was pushed through Congress because the Bush administration wanted it done and Democrats have been fighting it ever since.
Like much of the popular opinion regarding politics, that is inaccurate. UIGEA was passed in 2006, during Bush’s second term. That much is true. However, the bill, which was part of the SAFE Port Act, had overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, it had a type of bipartisan support that is rare in such a polarized era. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 421-2, with 9 representatives not voting (why members of Congress can abstain from voting so often when that is their only job is another story). It then passed the Senate by a 98-0 vote, with 2 senators not voting. After differences in the House and Senate versions were resolved, the conference report was then passed by the House 409-2, with 21 representatives not voting.
Two, folks. Two people voted against the bill. Of those two who voted against the bill, one was a Republican (Jeff Blake of Arizona) and one was a Democrat (Edward Markey of Massachusetts). Barney Frank, the current “patron saint” of online gambling, did not vote.
This is the legislation that he now deems to important to overturn, yet he didn’t even vote on it. Not an aye, not a nay. Nothing. Keep in mind that UIGEA was part of the much larger SAFE Port Act, which was concerned mostly with port security, but to say that it was a Republican bill that Democrats opposed isn’t exactly accurate, considering that only 1 Democrat voted against it and just as many Republicans did as well. Now, I don’t support either party, because they both suck (though I think Republicans suck less), but it’s time for some people to get their stories straight.
Tags: Barney Frank, Earl Blumenauer, Edward Markey, gambling law, gambling legislation, Jeff Blake, legal online gambling, online casino, SAFE Port Act, UIGEA, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
May 21st, 2010 at 8:05 am
[...] I exposed the myth that Democrats are for online gambling and Republicans are against it. Even Barney Frank, who is [...]
May 23rd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The votes for the Safe Port act, not the UIGEA, which was snuck in at the last moment without debate. Had it been voted on separately from a “National Security” bill, the vote would have been much different (thus the need to tack it on to an unrelated bill). You absolutely cannot draw the conclusion that a vote for the “Safe Port Act” was a vote against gambling.
While still an Illinois Senator, Obama admitted to playing poker weekly, so you know there is one Democrat that is probably for legalizing poker.
May 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
You’re absolutely right, which is why I made a point of pointing out twice that UIGEA was part of the SAFE Port Act. That tactic of tacking something onto an unrelated bill at the end is dirty and needs to stop. I was simply making the point that it is incorrect to say that this is a partisan issue and that Democrats are against UIGEA and Republicans for it. There are supporters and opponents of online gambling in both parties (which is another thing I said in the article). Also, the dirty parliamentary tactic aside, the congressmen knew that UIGEA was in there if they read the bill before voting. If they didn’t read it, they can’t really claim to have been against it. If they did and didn’t speak out against it (despite the fact that there was no debate on that issue) then again, how can they say they were against it from the beginning. Frank could have said something along the lines of ‘I will only vote for the SAFE Port Act if you remove UIGEA from it,” but he did not.