GOP Presidential Hopefuls Introduce Sheldon Adelson-Backed Bill to Ban Online Gambling

Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are among a cohort of senators that revived legislation heavily favored by the billionaire GOP donor.

Sheldon Adelson single-handedly helped Newt Gingrich stay alive in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.
National Journal
June 24, 2015, 4:01 p.m.

Two Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors run­ning for pres­id­ent re­in­tro­duced a bill Wed­nes­day that would ef­fect­ively ban In­ter­net poker and oth­er forms of on­line gambling—le­gis­la­tion that has long been cham­pioned by casino mag­nate and GOP mega-donor Shel­don Ad­el­son.

Both Lind­sey Gra­ham and Marco Ru­bio joined a hand­ful of Re­pub­lic­ans and one Demo­crat in re­viv­ing the Res­tor­a­tion of Amer­ica’s Wire Act, a meas­ure that pro­ponents say would “re­store” the prop­er in­ter­pret­a­tion of a dec­ades-old fed­er­al ban on some gambling op­er­a­tions by ex­pand­ing it to in­clude In­ter­net gambling.

The four-page bill is nearly the same as a meas­ure in­tro­duced last year and closely mir­rors a bill offered by House Over­sight Chair­man Jason Chaf­fetz this year. The on­line ban has failed to gain trac­tion in either cham­ber of Con­gress, but Ad­el­son—whose net worth tal­lies in the bil­lions and who has made a name of him­self as one of the biggest fun­ders of Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns—re­mains an in­flu­en­tial and ar­dent sup­port­er.

(RE­LATED: An Ad­el­son Backs Lind­sey Gra­ham for Pres­id­ent

Back­ers of the bill, in­clud­ing Gra­ham and Ru­bio, say that Ad­el­son’s in­flu­ence has noth­ing to do with their sup­port. They ar­gue that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion ac­ted bey­ond its bounds in 2011 when it is­sued a Justice De­part­ment memo cla­ri­fy­ing its read­ing of the 1961 Wire Act, which his­tor­ic­ally has been used to po­lice all forms of gambling. That memo said that in­ter­state gambling across “wire com­mu­nic­a­tions” that do not re­late to sports bet­ting do not fall with­in the scope of the act.

“Now, be­cause of this de­cision by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, vir­tu­ally any cell phone or com­puter in South Car­o­lina could be­come a video poker ma­chine,” Gra­ham said in a state­ment. “A ma­jor re­write of a long-stand­ing fed­er­al law like this should be made by the people’s elec­ted rep­res­ent­at­ives in Con­gress and signed in­to law by the pres­id­ent, not done ad­min­is­trat­ively.”

But the le­gis­la­tion’s crit­ics, in­clud­ing poker groups and former Rep. Ron Paul, have ac­cused its spon­sors of suc­cumb­ing to blatant cronyism to ap­pease Ad­el­son’s deep pock­ets. As chief ex­ec­ut­ive of Las Ve­gas Sands Cor­por­a­tion, Ad­el­son presides over a brick-and-mor­tar casino em­pire and has vowed to spend un­lim­ited amounts of money to end U.S. gam­ing sites. Though his de­tract­ors see the lob­by­ing as self-serving, Ad­el­son has ar­gued those sites—which ex­ploded in pop­ular­ity over the past 15 years—amount to a “so­ci­et­al train wreck wait­ing to hap­pen” be­cause they un­der­mine fam­ily val­ues.

(RE­LATED: Sev­en Free-Agent Re­pub­lic­an Mega-Donors to Watch)

John Pap­pas, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Poker Play­ers Al­li­ance, sug­ges­ted in a state­ment that Gra­ham’s in­tro­duc­tion of the bill wasn’t be­ing re­spect­ful of the re­cent mass shoot­ing at Emanuel AME Church in Char­le­ston, South Car­o­lina.

“As the eyes of the na­tion are fo­cused on South Car­o­lina fol­low­ing the re­cent tra­gic event, I think I speak for most Amer­ic­ans when I ex­press pro­found dis­ap­point­ment in Sen­at­or Gra­ham for choos­ing this time to ad­vance a bill for the sole be­ne­fit of a bil­lion­aire polit­ic­al donor,” Pap­pas said. “The Con­gress made the de­cision to ad­journ early so they could at­tend ser­vices on Fri­day in Sen­at­or Gra­ham’s home state. Un­for­tu­nately, Sen­at­or Gra­ham has not re­set his pri­or­it­ies and picked a very un­for­tu­nate time to en­gage in the In­ter­net gam­ing de­bate.”

Ad­el­son so far has not pub­licly pledged fealty to any one GOP con­tender this cycle, though he did make dona­tions to Gra­ham’s Sen­ate reelec­tion cam­paign last year. That cash co­in­cided with a sud­den in­terest in on­line gambling from the sen­at­or, who had been quiet on the is­sue. Ad­el­son also co­chaired a Gra­ham fun­draiser in Feb­ru­ary of this year.

(RE­LATED: How Ted Cruz Is Mak­ing His Case to Shel­don Ad­el­son)

Ru­bio has been re­l­at­ively quiet on on­line gambling as well. But many be­lieve the Flor­ida de­fense hawk’s policy po­s­i­tions line up well with Ad­el­son’s pri­or­it­ies, par­tic­u­larly in re­gard to na­tion­al de­fense and Is­rael.

Ad­el­son launched the Co­ali­tion to Stop In­ter­net Gambling last year, amid ac­tion from sev­er­al state­houses to re­duce or re­move re­stric­tions on on­line gambling. In a state­ment, the group said there was a “tre­mend­ous amount of mo­mentum” for cur­tail­ing In­ter­net gam­ing.

“Pred­at­ory on­line gambling is ru­in­ing lives all across our coun­try and this bill will help us stop it,” John Ash­brook, a co­ali­tion spokes­man, said.

Oth­er spon­sors of the Restor­ing Amer­ica’s Wire Act in­clude Re­pub­lic­ans Kelly Ayotte, Mike Lee, Dan Coats, and Thom Tillis, in ad­di­tion to Cali­for­nia Demo­crat Di­anne Fein­stein.

This story has been up­dated.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Signs Border Deal
18 hours ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

House Passes Funding Deal
1 days ago

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.