Republican Presidential Candidates' Stands on Internet Gaming

[TheEngineer]

Well, there are 10 declared Republican presidential candidates, plus Sen. Fred Thompson will likely offically declare soon. So, I thought we ought to try to figure out where they all stand on Internet gambling.

Sam Brownback
Senator of Kansas. Proud social conservative. Cosponsor of several Internet gambling ban bills. Also sponsored bills on broadcast decency and on bans of violent video games. Supports big-government social conservatism.

Jim Gilmore
Former Governor of Virginia. Social conservative. I found no record on his stand on any gambling issue.

Rudy Giuliani
Former mayor of NY. Social liberal. I found no record on his stand on any gambling issue. Rep. Peter King (R), cosponsor of IGREA, is his ally.

Mike Huckabee
Baptist minister, former Gov. of Arkansas. As governor, he opposed Arkansas state lottery. I. Nelson Rose says Huckabee is staunchly anti-gambling (http://gaming.unlv.edu/reading/rose84.html). And, the CATO institute gave him an F for spending and tax policy, and an overall D in 2006. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581/reportcard_table.html

Duncan Hunter
CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gambling by credit card, 2003. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Duncan_Hunter_Technology.htm
Voted for HR 4411. Big-time anti-gambling guy

John McCain
AZ senator. Generally opposes our rights.

Mitt Romney
Former MA governor. I found no record on his stand on Internet gambling.

Ron Paul
TX represenative. Big proponent of our rights.

Tom Tancredo
CO representative. Supported HR 4411 and HR 2143 (banned credit card use for Internet gambling) http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Tom_Tancredo_Technology.htm

Fred Thompson
Former senator from TN. Often described as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. I found no record on his stand on any gambling issue.

Tommy Thompson
Former governor of Wisconsin. From http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/050599_tthompson_testimony.htm (1997):

[ QUOTE ]
The federal government should not usurp the states’ authority to regulate legalized gaming. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission is currently conducting fact-finding studies on the “economic and social impacts of legalized gaming on states, tribes, communities and individuals.” However, the members of this commission do not represent the interests of the states, and there is concern that the Commission’s true intent is to recommend national legislation to regulate gaming.
States can and should set sound gaming policies that address key issues and challenges associated with legalized gaming, and state gaming officials should enforce such policies. Some types of gaming, such as Indian gaming and Internet gambling, require cooperation from appropriate federal agencies. But it is the duty and responsibility of individual states, not the federal government, to regulate lotteries and casinos within their boarders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good. I sent him an email for clarification of his position.

Anyone have any knowledge of candidates' positions? If might be early enough to start doing what we can to support candidates on our side.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

From an internet gambling standpoint I'd probably grade the credible presidential candidates thusly:

Obama B-
Rudy C+
Edwards C
Hillary C-
Gore C-
F. Thompson D-
Romney D-
McCain D-

Others:

Paul A+
Richardson B-
Bloomberg C+
Hagel D+
Gingrich F
Huckabee F

[Reef]

thx for the analysis

[Moneyline]

I was thinking of posting something like this myself, thanks for doing it Engineer. I have a couple thoughts:

First, am I the only one who is very concerned about Giuliani? He vigorously attacked the poker clubs in NYC as mayor, in IIRC what he called his "Quality of Life Campaign." I don't see why he would be pro online poker when he was so intensely anti-underground poker in New York.

Secondly, does anyone have info on meetings/events the candidates stage where they field questions from the audience. I think Edwards is particularly accessible like this with his "town hall" events. Some of the lesser known candidates driving around the early primary states are probably relatively easy to get ahold of as well.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[censored] giuliani.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
First, am I the only one who is very concerned about Giuliani? He vigorously attacked the poker clubs in NYC as mayor, in IIRC what he called his "Quality of Life Campaign." I don't see why he would be pro online poker when he was so intensely anti-underground poker in New York.


[/ QUOTE ]

I sent him a letter asking for his position on IGREA. He's a "law and order" guy, not a social conservative who wants to legislate morality. In NYC he was enforcing existing law relative to poker. So, I suppose it could go either way. Based on his abortion ideas, he seems predisposed to leave a lot of issues to the states.

Maybe King can talk sense into him.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, does anyone have info on meetings/events the candidates stage where they field questions from the audience. I think Edwards is particularly accessible like this with his "town hall" events. Some of the lesser known candidates driving around the early primary states are probably relatively easy to get ahold of as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
From an internet gambling standpoint I'd probably grade the credible presidential candidates thusly:

Obama B-
Rudy C+
Edwards C
Hillary C-
Gore C-
F. Thompson D-
Romney D-
McCain D-

Others:

Paul A+
Richardson B-
Bloomberg C+
Hagel D+
Gingrich F
Huckabee F

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis, thanks. I had grades on my initial post, but deleted them so as not to influence the discussion. Mine were the same as yours, except I had Brownback on with an F-, Huckabee with an F-, and Richardson higher.

Believe it or not, Bill Richardson has come out on our side. This was in the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/30/giuliani_counts_backers_who_arent_fans/
By Marc Humbert, Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2007
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, in a campaign stop in Nevada, said Monday he favors overturning last year's congressional ban on Internet gambling.
"I'm against shutting it down," Richardson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This is important to the economy of the state, as long as it's properly regulated and it is."

While in this wide-open gambling state, the New Mexico governor said he might occasionally play slot machines but otherwise doesn't gamble.

The Internet gambling ban prohibits banks from processing fund transfers from players to settle their online wagers. The Federal Reserve and other bank regulators were tasked with coming up with practical measures to enforce the law by July 2007.

Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, according to industry figures, most of it through sites run by companies outside the U.S.

I'm not sure how Internet gambling helps New Mexico's economy, but it sounds good to me.

Also, Rep.Dennis Kucinich voted against HR 4111. He also opposed the bill that restricted credit card use for Internet gambling.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, Bill Richardson has come out on our side. This was in the Boston Globe:

[/ QUOTE ]

Richardson definitely deserves a higher grade then, maybe an A-/B+. The other thing that's favorable about him is that he seems willing to support a position that might not be politically expedient (I'm thinking about how he recently signed a bill to legalize medical marijuana in New Mexico). The worry I have about some of the other Democrats is that while they might be nominally liberal, I don't know that they'd be willing to expend any political capital on the issue.

Giuliani is the tough one to peg. He seems to be genuinely irreligious, and he's pragmatic, both of which are helpful. But, if he places gambling under his law-and-order rubric, that could be problematic. Theoretically, he seems like someone who would probably have voted for the UIGEA because of concerns about money laundering, etc., but might also be persuaded that the proper solution to these problems is to regulate the industry.

EDIT: Found a couple of articles about Giuliani that suggest that he might be sympathetic to regulation (see below). I would keep his grade at a C+ for now.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E4DF1E3DF935A35751C1A9619582 60

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E1DE1731F93AA25751C1A9609582 60

EDIT #2: Another article suggesting that Rudy has received the most campaign contributions from the gambling industry.

http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/04/giuliani_vice.html

I think it's safe to say that Paul and Richardson are the best of the long-shot candidates, Obama and Rudy the best of the mainstream candidates.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Also, here is another list detailing the campaign contributions received by each candidate from the casino gambling industry so far. Rudy isn't just ahead, he's way ahead.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=N07

Based on the info in this thread I would revise the grades thusly:

Paul A+
Richardson A-/B+
Rudy B/B-
Obama B-
Bloomberg C+
Hillary C
Edwards C
Gore C-
Hagel D+
McCain D
F. Thompson D-
Romney D-
Gingrich F
Huckabee F
Brownback F

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Richardson definitely deserves a higher grade then, maybe an A-/B+.

[/ QUOTE ]

His support hasn't been reported much, so it's not surprising we haven't heard much about it. I found it via a Google search, then a word search of the article itself, as it was buried in the middle. Still, it's awesome to have a governor speak out for us. It may deserve its own thread (but this one may suffice).

Good catches on Giuliani, especially on the campaign contributions. I think we need to be most concerned about politicans who feel gambling is some kind of moral evil (Brownback, Huckabee, Kyl, Bachus, etc.), for many reasons, including the fact that these guys tend to make up reasons (like money laundering, terrorist funding, etc) to ban gambling to obfuscate their real reasons for trying to ban our right to choose to play. These guys think God told them to make us stop playing poker.

[Ron Burgundy]

Why would Guiliani get go much $ from the gambling industry?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Guiliani get go much $ from the gambling industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that, as the only front-running socially liberal Republican candidate, he represents the best hope for gambling interests. Certainly better than McCain.

Also, the gaming industry regularly spreads a lot of money around.

[Skallagrim]

I have a lot of worries about Guilliani, he has an authortarian streak a mile long, and certainly would see no problem with extreme enforcement if he viewed online poker as illegal. But maybe we can convince him that poker shouldn't be illegal. I'll try and get an answer from him the next time he is in my area of New Hamsphire and let you guys know what he says /images/graemlins/wink.gif (its one of the benfits of living in NH).

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, here is another list detailing the campaign contributions received by each candidate from the casino gambling industry so far. Rudy isn't just ahead, he's way ahead.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=N07

Based on the info in this thread I would revise the grades thusly:

Paul A+
Richardson A-/B+
Rudy B/B-
Obama B-
Bloomberg C+
Hillary C
Edwards C
Gore C-
Hagel D+
McCain D
F. Thompson D-
Romney D-
Gingrich F
Huckabee F
Brownback F

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at how much lawyers and law firms are giving and to whom. John Edwards, our friendly neighborhood ambulance chaser followed by Hillary.

Tuff

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Guiliani get go much $ from the gambling industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's too early to say. We should remember the even Bill Frist got money from the gambling industry.

[blutarski]

I like Richardson in general. He has cred in international affairs and definitely experience in the executive branch. He's smart, soft spoken, and would probably garner much of the hispanic vote.

Too bad he doesn't have a chance in hell.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to be most concerned about politicans who feel gambling is some kind of moral evil (Brownback, Huckabee, Kyl, Bachus, etc.), for many reasons, including the fact that these guys tend to make up reasons (like money laundering, terrorist funding, etc) to ban gambling to obfuscate their real reasons for trying to ban our right to choose to play. These guys think God told them to make us stop playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect Romney belongs in this group. I'm pretty sure he's a Mormon. There is a reason Utah is 1 of only 2 states that have no form of legal gambling whatsoever.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to be most concerned about politicans who feel gambling is some kind of moral evil (Brownback, Huckabee, Kyl, Bachus, etc.), for many reasons, including the fact that these guys tend to make up reasons (like money laundering, terrorist funding, etc) to ban gambling to obfuscate their real reasons for trying to ban our right to choose to play. These guys think God told them to make us stop playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect Romney belongs in this group. I'm pretty sure he's a Mormon. There is a reason Utah is 1 of only 2 states that have no form of legal gambling whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard they have a lottery.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to be most concerned about politicans who feel gambling is some kind of moral evil (Brownback, Huckabee, Kyl, Bachus, etc.), for many reasons, including the fact that these guys tend to make up reasons (like money laundering, terrorist funding, etc) to ban gambling to obfuscate their real reasons for trying to ban our right to choose to play. These guys think God told them to make us stop playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect Romney belongs in this group. I'm pretty sure he's a Mormon. There is a reason Utah is 1 of only 2 states that have no form of legal gambling whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard they have a lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only lottery they have is driving to Idaho for Powerball tickets. A couple convenience stores on the border really appreciate it.

Utah and Hawaii have absolutely no form of gambling that is legal.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The only lottery they have is driving to Idaho for Powerball tickets.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, I had my states confused.

[koolmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/30/giuliani_counts_backers_who_arent_fans/
By Marc Humbert, Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2007
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson, <font color="red">in a campaign stop in Nevada,</font> said Monday he favors overturning last year's congressional ban on Internet gambling.

I'm not sure how Internet gambling helps New Mexico's economy, but it sounds good to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about Nevada's economy.

[tangled]

When assessing a candidate like Guiliani on this issue, absent an already stated position, you have to take into account the political dynamics in play. All candidates, regardles the party, have to answer to the base of the party sooner or later if they want to be successful. Yes Guiliani is a social liberal, so that seems like a good thing, but the base of the Republican party is not -- decidly. For example, Guilliani is a pro-choice candidate , which hurts him tremendously with the Jesus camp crowd that is the base of the Republican party. Therefore, Guiliani has to "make up ground somewhere". Internet gaming could be that place. In fact, he may want to go overboard against our rights in some desperate attempt to get the social conservatives to overlook his stance on abortion.

Historically, this kind of going overboard has happened a great deal: Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, said some horrible things about blacks circa the 1860 election; FDR, arguably the father of our welfare-friendly government, once refered to welfare as a dangerous narcotic. And in 2006, the moderate Senate majority leader, considering a run for the White House at the time, slipped a provision into a completely unrelated bill that put us into this mess in the first place.

My recommendation would be not to try to lock Guiliani into a position on this until the situation is more advantageous for us, like after the nomination proccess, when party nominees start to pandor more to moderate Americans by taking more moderate positions on issues - if they can.

This same kind of thing applies to McCain too I think. There is no way he cares if people play poker online imo, but the 2000 election convinced him of the importance of pandoring to the religious right.

[MinRaise]

[ QUOTE ]
the moderate Senate majority leader

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not see him during the Terri Schiavo thing? I actually agree with everything else you said though. You are right on the money with McCain and possibly Guiliani. He did an ad for an ultra right wing candidate in the governer's race here in Ohio. I remember thinking at the time that it was a bad move, and how it reeked of right wing asskissing.

[Aardhart]

Keep in mind that the friends of casinos might be the enemies of online poker.

[Jeffiner99]

I think there is a Debate on Fox tomorrow night for Republican Candidates. The last time it was on MSNBC they allowed the audience to email questions. Any chance Fox will do the same? If so, how about a question to the candidates such as DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAY POKER ONLINE OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE 35 MILLION AMERICANS CRIMINALS THAT HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN CANADIANS or cubans or well someplace else?

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a Debate on Fox tomorrow night for Republican Candidates. The last time it was on MSNBC they allowed the audience to email questions. Any chance Fox will do the same? If so, how about a question to the candidates such as DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAY POKER ONLINE OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE 35 MILLION AMERICANS CRIMINALS THAT HAVE FEWER RIGHTS THAN CANADIANS or cubans or well someplace else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so I answered my own question:



FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.

Please e-mail your question to debate@foxnews.com. Include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.

Please keep your question sharp, brief and to the point. And let us know which candidate you'd like us to ask.

Watch the debate live on FOX News Channel at 9 p.m. ET on May 15 to see if your question was selected.


Let's bombard them. Engineer, can you put up an action sticky thing?

[Jeffiner99]

Since I think we all agree that Ron Paul rocks, perhaps we should just ask the other candidates. I wouldn't want to hurt Ron Paul by pointing out to his ultra conservative fans that he is for gambling. It may do him more harm than good. Most of us gamblers already know he is the King Mea Mea nuts!

Send Ron Paul a softball. Something like ... where do you stand on limiting government spending? Or what is the inflation tax and what would you do about it? Or what do you think of the Income tax? Things that will help him develop fans outside our tiny little group.

[BIG NIGE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo&amp;NR=1

Clips of Ron Paul from the first debate. I didn't get a chance to hear the other candidates, but I like that guy's views. I'm all for keeping government out of people's private lives and not telling people what's best for them. I am somewhat concerned about his unyielding loyalty to the constitution, because on some issues he might stand too much on principle and not on what's practical, especially since the constitution is a 230-year-old document. Also, some of the things he wants to do, like reinstate the gold standard and abolish the IRS/income taxes, could be very destabilizing and lead to serious economic uncertainty. Still, he's definitely the kind of candidate that people need to hear, and hopefully he'll get enough support to influence the positions of more politically formidable candidates.

[Dunkman]

Just an aside...what good would it do to reinstate the gold standard? Seems like that's kinda trivial since almost all transactions are electronic these days.

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
Just an aside...what good would it do to reinstate the gold standard? Seems like that's kinda trivial since almost all transactions are electronic these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has to do with curbing inflation. If currency was tied to the gold standard, it would be as stable as the value of gold. Paul says that inflation is really a "tax" on poor and middle Americans, and that it mostly helps Wall Street.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.

Please e-mail your question to debate@foxnews.com. Include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.

Please keep your question sharp, brief and to the point. And let us know which candidate you'd like us to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the email I sent. Feel free to use it for yourself.

My question is open to all candidates.

If you were faced with 2 bills passed by Congress; one which seeks to legalize and regulate online poker, and another which seeks to further curb online poker, which bill would you sign and which bill would you veto?

Thanks,

My Contact Info

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Please e-mail your question to debate@foxnews.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well-worded. I sent it as well.

FYI -- thre's a minor typo in the mailing address (no period after the ".com").

[J. Sawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
From an internet gambling standpoint I'd probably grade the credible presidential candidates thusly:

Obama B-
Rudy C+
Edwards C
Hillary C-
Gore C-
F. Thompson D-
Romney D-
McCain D-

Others:

Paul A+
Richardson B-
Bloomberg C+
Hagel D+
Gingrich F
Huckabee F

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Mike Gravel?

http://www.gravel2008.us/

[BIG NIGE]

President Gravel....

Nope, not happening /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TheEngineer]

Interesting article about Fred Thomspon, at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/31/is-fred-thompson-a-small-government-conservative/ . There's no reference to Internet gambling, but it does help us see where he stands relative to the idea of an all-powerful federal government.

------------------

Is Fred Thompson a Small-Government Conservative?

With former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson creeping ever closer to a formal announcement that he will run for president, it is worth asking whether he is the genuine small-government conservative that has been missing from the top tier of the Republican field (with all due apologies to Ron Paul). A preliminary look at his record suggests that while he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, he may be much better on most issues than the alternatives....

[tangled]

Why is Gingrich getting such a low rating? Is it just because of his obvious social conservatism or is there a more tangible reason - like a stated position on the issue?
I am not disagreeing with the rating, I was just wondering.

[Grey]

http://www.whatididinthewar.com/buttons/08BO.gif

[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect Romney belongs in this group. I'm pretty sure he's a Mormon. There is a reason Utah is 1 of only 2 states that have no form of legal gambling whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likely true, however, he may be actually able to seperate his personal beliefs from what he's supposed to be doing.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Likely true, however, he may be actually able to seperate his personal beliefs from what he's supposed to be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this possibility is there. In an idealistic world this is what all of our political reps would do (makes decisions based on the facts and input from constituents without undue influence based on their personal beliefs). In the real world most fall somewhere on the spectrum of completley amoral (where can I get the most money or which side will get me the most votes) to voting entirely on personal beliefs. Few are at the extremes, but I doubt many hit the sweet spot between the two. My experience and observation of Mormon politicians as a group over several decades doesn't give me much hope on this score. However I have no knowledge on Romney's past record and can't rule out the possibility that he is one of the rare exceptions.