Libertarian Groups Write to Sessions, Pence to Oppose Online Gambling Ban

Politics can make for strange bedfellows. Case in point: me! It may come as a shock to those of you who have read anything I have written lately, but I am decidedly in the “liberal” portion of the political spectrum. Being in the online poker world, though, I often find myself allying with Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans as the fight for online poker continues in the United States. With Senator Jeff Sessions’ recent comments about being “shocked” at the Office of Legal Counsel’s 2011 clarification of the Wire Act and his stated willingness to review the decision should he become Attorney General have put a scare into the poker community. As such, a number of Libertarian political organizations have written a letter to Sessions and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, urging them to halt the nonsense and just leave the OLC’s clarification and online poker be.

The letter was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which looks like it took the lead in its writing. The people who signed the letter are:

Michelle Minton – Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Langer – President, Institute for Liberty
David Williams – President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Norman Singleton – Vice President of Policy, Campaign for Liberty
Andrew F. Quinlan – President, Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Katie McAuliffe – Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Tom Giovanetti – President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Paul Guessing – President, Rio Grande Foundation

It is a lengthy missive, which starts with a straight-forward statement:

After a contentious election year, a divided nation looks to the new Trump administration to make good on promises to “drain the swamp” and change the way Washington does business. We, a group of free-market, limited-government, and freedom-oriented organizations, respectfully urge the new administration to honor that promise by refusing special interest demands for a federal prohibition on Internet gambling.

The letter goes on to discuss the history of the Wire Act, the OLC’s clarification that it applies only to sports betting and not all internet gambling, and how the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA)  – a bill which seeks to make the previous, incorrect interpretation of the Wire Act official law – has barely received any support in Congress.

The signatories continue to layout the same sorts of arguments online poker supports have been making for years: that banning online poker will only make consumers less safe as their outlets will now be unregulated sites, that there is no evidence to support increases in gambling-related problems because of online gaming (and that regulations can actually help those with gambling disorders), that there is no evidence of increased money laundering, fraud, or underage gambling in regards to online poker, and that states and the federal government are missing out on millions of dollars in tax revenues by keeping online gambling on the sidelines.

The letter concluded:

Reinterpreting the Wire Act would not “restore” it to its original meaning or uphold the legislative process. Instead, it would have the opposite effect by changing the original intent of the Wire Act and circumventing Congress and the legislative process. And, perhaps what’s worst, is that it would severely injure one of our nation’s founding principles: the idea that the federal government’s power should be limited and states should be free to regulate intrastate commerce as they see fit.