Frank Says Opponents Of E-Gambling Do Not Have Votes
It is "very unlikely" Congress will pass legislation against Internet gambling this year, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Thursday.
"They will not be able to get a bill through this year; I don't know about next year," Frank said at an e-gambling forum sponsored by the Cato Institute.
He said the numerous exceptions to gambling regulation being applied to a Senate bill are derailing the issue's momentum. "There aren't the votes to do a complete vote, and once you start making exceptions, I think ... it does start to unravel."
Frank opposes a ban on e-gambling because of such complexities, and he said other individuals' opposition to gambling in general is "based solely on dislike" of the practice. "There is no consumer product out there on which some small percentage of people will not spend too much," he argued. "People will not always spend their money wisely."
"I'm struck by the liberal colleagues I have who defend people's right ... to smoke marijuana and view pornography, and the right to do a number of other things that aren't always at the top of the list of virtues," he said. "How do you make exceptions here that they can't gamble? I have tried to get answers," and his colleagues just say gambling is "tacky."
"Gambling is to liberals as pornography is to conservatives," Frank said. "That is, it is an activity with which adults ought to be free to engage in if they wish. It depends on how sensibly the individual engages in it."
When asked how to protect children from using parents' credit cards to gamble online, Frank said that is a "fair question" but replied, "In general, I think we have to resist the notion that you ban activities for adults because children might engage in them."
Ray Sauer, a professor of economics at Clemson University, said the battle over gambling is centuries old, and the Internet has just added another dimension to the debate. Advocates and detractors of gambling "are battling each other off and on, but more or less continually all over the entire period of American history," he said. "Internet gambling is a sitting duck for the political system."
"Even if you take the principled view that gambling is fundamentally wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that the appropriate government reform is to prohibit it," said Koleman Strumpf, associate professor of economics at the University of North Carolina.
Strumpf argued that gambling, particularly on sports, is so prevalent it will continue regardless of whether it is legal online. "It's very difficult to prohibit an activity that's very widely popular," he said. "The very act of prohibition can and would make some of the potential faults people have with gambling worse, [and it] is inherently likely to fail." By Chloe Albanesius
It is "very unlikely" Congress will pass legislation against Internet gambling this year, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Thursday.
"They will not be able to get a bill through this year; I don't know about next year," Frank said at an e-gambling forum sponsored by the Cato Institute.
He said the numerous exceptions to gambling regulation being applied to a Senate bill are derailing the issue's momentum. "There aren't the votes to do a complete vote, and once you start making exceptions, I think ... it does start to unravel."
Frank opposes a ban on e-gambling because of such complexities, and he said other individuals' opposition to gambling in general is "based solely on dislike" of the practice. "There is no consumer product out there on which some small percentage of people will not spend too much," he argued. "People will not always spend their money wisely."
"I'm struck by the liberal colleagues I have who defend people's right ... to smoke marijuana and view pornography, and the right to do a number of other things that aren't always at the top of the list of virtues," he said. "How do you make exceptions here that they can't gamble? I have tried to get answers," and his colleagues just say gambling is "tacky."
"Gambling is to liberals as pornography is to conservatives," Frank said. "That is, it is an activity with which adults ought to be free to engage in if they wish. It depends on how sensibly the individual engages in it."
When asked how to protect children from using parents' credit cards to gamble online, Frank said that is a "fair question" but replied, "In general, I think we have to resist the notion that you ban activities for adults because children might engage in them."
Ray Sauer, a professor of economics at Clemson University, said the battle over gambling is centuries old, and the Internet has just added another dimension to the debate. Advocates and detractors of gambling "are battling each other off and on, but more or less continually all over the entire period of American history," he said. "Internet gambling is a sitting duck for the political system."
"Even if you take the principled view that gambling is fundamentally wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that the appropriate government reform is to prohibit it," said Koleman Strumpf, associate professor of economics at the University of North Carolina.
Strumpf argued that gambling, particularly on sports, is so prevalent it will continue regardless of whether it is legal online. "It's very difficult to prohibit an activity that's very widely popular," he said. "The very act of prohibition can and would make some of the potential faults people have with gambling worse, [and it] is inherently likely to fail." By Chloe Albanesius
