Gambling as a Presidential issue

With pressing national and international issues focusing the attention of Republican Presidential debates, the national future of expanded gambling has been largely ignored, yet the generosity of Sheldon Adelson raises interest.

Interesting comments from Hartley Henderson:


From:
Hartley Henderson
Newt Gingrich Better Choice for Gamblers


Gingrich has never come out with a statement about gambling one way or the other but his actions speak louder than words. Sheldon Adelson, CEO of Sands in Las Vegas has been a close ally and strong financial supporter of Gingrich both for his non profit enterprise and in his election campaign. Gingrich has generated financial support from others attached to the gambling industry as well and has even garnered donations from Asians interested in the U.S. gambling market. Moreover, in the 1990s Gingrich helped kill a tax bill aimed at Las Vegas casinos that the industry was worried about and in 1996 he voted against a proposed commission that was set to examine the gambling industry in the United States. At a time when Janet Reno announced that the government wanted to wring in those who the Clinton administration believed were thwarting U.S. gambling laws, Gingrich was one of the main opponents which ultimately stopped the commission from going forward. Ironically, that decision lost him favor with many on the religious right, a group he is now trying to cater to.

Strangely, while those actions were pro-gambling, other actions and statements contradict that belief. In 2006 Newt Gingrich was instrumental in thwarting a bill aimed at regulating online gambling (prior to the passage of the UIGEA) and comments he made recently have many wondering exactly which way he leans.

"Well, let me say up front, at the risk of offending some of my friends who've been very helpful, I worry about the degree to which the poor are the most likely to end up spending a large percentage of their income gambling in the false hope that they can mathematically beat the system,” Gingrich said in one of his statements on the topic.

But that statement and his decision in 2006 could actually be calculated. Adelson has been opposed to regulated online gambling since the notion was introduced and Gingrich clearly listens to his largest supporter. Adelson’s $10 million recent donation, not to mention the moneys given over the years could easily have influenced that decision in 2006. If Adelson all of a sudden came out in favor of legalized online gambling there’s a very good chance that Gingrich will follow the money there as well and announce that he has reversed his earlier decision. And the comment that he’s worried that the poor are spending too much on gambling is a no brainer. No one wants the poor to be gambling what they don’t have, casino owners included. In fact the only ones who rely on the poor to gamble their money are the state lotteries and no one is prepared to take a stand on eliminating the lottery system. So that statement is irrelevant. It was designed to win favor with the evangelical right while assuring the middle class that their rights to bet at a land based casino won’t be compromised by a Gingrich government.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand is in a more precarious situation. As a Mormon, the Church of Latter Day Saints expects Romney to toe their religious line which bans gambling, alcohol and even coffee but Romney knows that opposing regulated online poker could hurt him in the Nevada Caucus. It’s safe to say that if Romney easily wins in Nevada the race is all but over but if Gingrich takes a decisive victory the race will be back on. Senator Harry Reid effectively announced that he will throw his support behind any candidate that supports poker regulation because it will mean “jobs, jobs, jobs” to the state but Romney told the Las Vegas Sun last month that he would take a position one way or the other prior to the Nevada Caucus on February 4th and true to his word he did make a statement yesterday on the show Face to Face where he came out in opposition to gambling expansion.

“I’m not (a supporter). Gaming has a social effect on a lot of people. I don’t want to increase access to gaming and feel that we have plenty of access to gaming right now through the various casinos and establishments that exist. In some states, there are lotteries that are used to fund their schools and budgets and so forth, and I don’t think online gambl … gaming would encourage or improve that setting,” Romney told Jon Ralston on the show.