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/r...ard_table.html

Duncan Hunter
CA congressman. Voted for HR 2143, banning Internet gambling by credit card, 2003. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dunc...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_...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/0505..._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/ar...ho_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/fullpag...51C1A961958260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A960958260

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.