The House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) in an effort to get some “facts” on this effort to ban iGaming. Unfortunately, all that those in attendance got were the lies and fear-mongering tactics that online-gaming proponents expected, given that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson basically paid to get this meeting. That said, let’s further discuss the hearing and how it was skewed in favor of Adelson and his cronies.
Most of the pre-selected witnesses bashed iGaming
This hearing certainly wasn’t set up to be a fair fight. Author and staunch online-gaming critic John Kindt was one of the key witnesses, and he spread his usual message that the activity is the “crack cocaine of gambling.” Of course, there’s yet to be a study produced that shows iGaming being any worse than land-based casinos in terms of creating addiction. But this didn’t stop Kindt from mentioning a 15-year-old study that reported how online gaming can’t be regulated. He also dug out this quote from 1995, when the activity was just getting started: “Killing personal, business, and institutional finances, internet gambling is widely known as the killer app of the Internet.”
Michael Fagan, a former U.S. Assistant Attorney, used his time to preach how iGaming has been used to fund terrorism. While this may have some small truth to it, Fagan never mentioned that it only occurred in unregulated markets. Additionally, he left the subcommittee with this quote: “Realistically, no police force or regulatory body will be big enough, skilled enough or funded enough.”
Les Bernal, who heads Stop Predatory Gambling, explained that no studies indicate that gaming volume decreases when it becomes regulated. He added that legalizing online poker and casino games is unlikely to curb anybody’s appetite for gaming. What’s interesting is that Bernal, Fagan and Kindt also said they don’t approve of Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands empire either.
There was some support in the hearing
Not everything was negative in this hearing. Andrew Moylan, the director of R Street Institute, believes that the states should have the right to decide if they want online gaming – not the federal government. His argument is one that was echoed by former U.S. Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who said, “Nowhere in the United States Constitution is Congress given the authority to criminalize online gambling.”
WiredSafety executive director Parry Aftab was one more pro-iGaming witness at the hearing. He believes that regulating iGaming is the best way to protect consumers from problems that have happened in unregulated environments. Here’s a look at what he stated after surveying iGaming for nearly two years:
“The verdict is in – with the exception of a handful of incidents which were quickly addressed, all stakeholders are safer and minors are being locked out of online gambling sites. It is much easier for them to get fake IDs and wander into a brick-and-mortar casino than get past the levels of age-gating used by online casinos. If you can’t prove that you are an adult, the site is closed to you. Period.”
Still no win for Adelson
Even in a meeting that he had heavy influence over, it doesn’t seem like Adelson came away with a clear victory for RAWA. Firstly, the key witnesses were mostly against gaming in general – both land-based and online. Secondly, they used a lot of old data and articles to back up claims made today.
This being said, as long as Adelson keeps spending, he still remains a threat to get iGaming banned. However, neither he nor his political allies have made any convincing arguments that iGaming is indeed a terrible thing.