Billionaire GOP donor and casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson wants fed gov to ban online gambling, but conservatives disagree on states rights principle

[Roma_Victrix]

GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson faces conservative rebellion over online gambling

Given the more than $100 million that Sheldon Adelson has donated lately to Republican causes, the billionaire casino tycoon is well-positioned to get what he wants from a GOP-dominated Congress.

But it turns out that the item on top of Adelson’s wish list — a ban on Internet gambling — is encountering resistance. And it’s not Democrats who stand in his way but a small group of fellow conservatives.

At issue is whether the proposed change in federal law sought by Adelson would violate a core conservative principle of states’ rights, which has been an animating issue for many tea party activists.

Online betting has been embraced by a number of Adelson’s industry rivals and several states eager for the additional tax revenue it provides. Adelson said he approaches the issue more as a father than a businessman — arguing that Internet gambling poses dire consequences to children, who could be lured to an addictive activity, or college students, who could rack up debilitating debts from their dorm rooms. Yet the move to the Internet has also been seen as a threat that could deplete the customer base for Adelson’s brick-and-mortar casino resorts.

The debate points to a newly visible complication for modern-day political megadonors, who are gaining influence with policymakers in an era of unlimited contributions but can also encounter friction when pursuing policies seen as helping their economic interests.

States “don’t need the federal government babysitting them,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax reform, who joined 10 other conservative- group leaders this week to send a letter to lawmakers urging them to “preserve the authority of the states” and reject the proposed ban.

Lobbyists for Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. have been working in recent weeks to press for quick passage of the measure, holding discussions with aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Half of the 22 Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee have co-sponsored the Adelson-backed legislation.

A House hearing on the bill, which was originally drafted by a Sands lawyer, had been tentatively scheduled for early December in hopes it might be considered by the full House before adjournment. The hearing, however, was called off this week as conservative opposition began to emerge.

Norquist and the leaders of the other groups, including the American Conservative Union, did not mention Adelson by name. But their letter follows the publication this week of a fiery online column by former congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), the libertarian hero and father of potential presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). He called the bill an example of “crony capitalism” written “for the benefit of one powerful billionaire.”

A spokesman for the Adelson-backed coalition supporting the ban did not respond directly to the criticism but said the change “remains an important goal for our coalition and for families across America.”

Adelson, 81, whose company owns casino resorts in Nevada, Macao and Singapore, is the eighth-richest person in the world, according to a Forbes Magazine survey. He has emerged over the past two elections as the Republican Party’s most prolific donor. He and his wife spent more than $90 million in 2012 supporting Republican candidates.

Adelson and his wife personally made more than $5.9 million in federal donations during the 2014 midterm election cycle, making them the eighth-biggest “individual donors” in the country this year as ranked by the Center for Responsive Politics. That total would not include money that Adelson may have given to pro-GOP nonprofit groups that are not required to identify their donors.

The casino owner has said that he intends to spend millions more in 2016 to elect a Republican president, prompting early jockeying by potential candidates to spend time with Adelson.

Adelson last year launched a campaign warning that Internet betting could harm children and other vulnerable people by giving them unfettered access to, in effect, a casino in their pocket. His allies argued that the effects could tarnish the industry’s traditional business model, which relies on drawing people to destination resort hotels.

Other casino companies, including Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts, have disagreed, arguing that regulated Internet gambling would be safer than unregulated games hosted by companies that operate offshore. They also say that online gambling could boost revenues, a position shared by a growing number of governors and state lottery officials. Three states have recently legalized some forms of Internet gambling, with half a dozen others considering the idea.

In Washington, Adelson and his team confront a delicate strategy decision. While the GOP megadonor will surely gain clout with Republicans running both the House and Senate next year, he also has a good relationship with Reid. The two are political foes in many respects, but as fellow Nevadans they share an affinity for the home-state gambling industry. And Reid, facing a tough reelection in 2016, stands to benefit from continued warm relations. Even if Adelson is not a direct benefactor to Reid, he could minimize his role in the Nevada Senate race.

A Reid spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Boehner said staffers have met with proponents and opponents of the bill since the election but did not comment further.

People familiar with Adelson’s strategy say his team is seeking a deal with congressional leaders that could include attaching the online gambling ban to a must-pass spending bill during the lame-duck session that ends in December.

Adelson’s top lobbyist, Andy Abboud, declined to comment for this story. He told the gambling trade press this month that Reid and Boehner were actively engaged on the issue.

“I know they’ve had some discussions to some degree about when legislation could move and the need to address the issue,” Abboud told GamblingCompliance, an industry newsletter. “It’s just not clear as to when the timing will be.”

Speaking with Nevada television journalist Jon Ralston, Abboud expressed confidence that a federal ban would be considered in Congress soon, either this year or next year. “The die is cast on this,” Abboud told Ralston. “The cake is baked.”

Adelson’s opponents have described a furious, behind-the-scenes push by both sides in recent days.

John Pappas, director of the Poker Players Alliance, which favors expansion of online gambling in the United States, said lobbyists working for and against the proposed ban have been seen frequently in the offices of members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Online gambling in the United States became a legal possibility thanks to a 2011 Justice Department opinion that cleared the way for states to allow many forms of online betting, which had previously been considered a violation of the Interstate Wire Act, a 1961 statute that prohibited wire “transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers.”

Several casino companies and allied groups moved quickly to sell the idea of online gambling as a source of revenue for state governments, which say they can deploy technology to make sure people only from the states allowing the activity log on to gamble.

Adelson called the 2011 Justice Department legal opinion a mistake and has taken steps to rein in online gambling, fighting state-level proposals to authorize it and pushing for the federal ban. A company lawyer penned an initial draft of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act — later refined and introduced last year by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — which would effectively prevent states from authorizing online betting.

The legislation has since picked up 18 co-sponsors in the House and three in the Senate, including a Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, whose home state is considering legalizing online poker.

I honestly hope that no one takes Adelson seriously when he says he's just doing this for the children.

Oh the children! The poor children! And his poorer revenue stream from actual free market competition.

The comedian George Carlin (RIP), on remarking how the real owners of our United States do what they want and we the voters just have the illusion of choice, basically boiled down our options: paper or plastic? Cash or card? If Adelson gets his way, it seems like our choice between two competitors in the gambling world will be whittled down to one: go to casinos (including his), or go nowhere at all.

Now, personally I think gambling is stupid and would never do so myself unless I'm betting something petty like $5 on a game of poker with close friends. However, the conservative base, ever so concerned with States' rights issues, has every right to rise up and clamor against Adelson's push to ban online gambling at the federal level. I don't know, what do you guys think? I think it's a bit refreshing to see conservatives, at least on this one issue, actively challenging one of their monetary overlords, one of the untouchable oligarchs who buy our politicians for a relatively small price when compared to their mass fortunes.

[kesa82]

I honestly hope that no one takes Adelson seriously when he says he's just doing this for the children.

Oh the children! The poor children!

I never do believe it unless :

You can give me the name of the kid , can tell me the kids favorite color , are sending the kid birthday cards and Christmas cards and still doing so at least ten years later , propose to adopt or marry the kid.

Socialised education cured me of that a priori assumption.

[Carl Jung was right]

I have nothing but praise for Mr. Adelson for his sincere efforts in raising awareness as to how wealthy sleazes in this country successfully buy off and manipulate legislature to suit their business interests.

[Gaidin]

Totally surprised you still had topic to write after the length of that title. 1080 monitor and I had a multiline topic line...feel sorry for others.

But yes. Adelson is a businessman. Not surprised. Moving on.

[Roma_Victrix]

Totally surprised you still had topic to write after the length of that title. 1080 monitor and I had a multiline topic line...feel sorry for others.

But yes. Adelson is a businessman. Not surprised. Moving on.

Yes, in the age of unlimited cash donations (thanks largely to Citizens United) and the giant super PACs, you shouldn't be surprised.

[Denny Crane!]

I kind of agree with him, we have online gambling in the UK and I do not think it is healthy. The sheer amount of advertising it generates is crazy. Addiction rates have gone up.

. "I have been very concerned about alcoholism for a long time, but problem gambling is just as bad. I have two close friends – , university-educated people – who are compulsive gamblers and now every penny they have has to be controlled by their wives.

"I have said in Parliament that the fixed-odds machines that you get in betting shops are like crack cocaine, but so is this [online gambling]. At least with other forms of gambling you have to go out of the house to do it. You can't lose your life savings playing bingo, but on the internet you can go on and on."

Casinos can offer self banning etc. To help control addiction, not so these.

[Mementomoridc]

I kind of agree with him, we have online gambling in the UK and I do not think it is healthy. The sheer amount of advertising it generates is crazy. Addiction rates have gone up.



Casinos can offer self banning etc. To help control addiction, not so these.

yes cause getting a letter of notification to every casino, race track, random place with a gambling machine or off site betting to ban you would be so simple. And then you know every time you walk into a bar screaming dont take bets from me for pool or darts is gona work.

[Denny Crane!]

yes cause getting a letter of notification to every casino, race track, random place with a gambling machine or off site betting to ban you would be so simple. And then you know every time you walk into a bar screaming dont take bets from me for pool or darts is gona work.

Sarcasm is such a useful tool. But turns out facts serve you better.

Like it or not it is proven to work at the big casinos. Self exclusion is a tool that helps and it is something done by the individual to stop him visiting his local areas and if he is really trying hard to quit it stops a temporary lapse in willpower as he passes.

I think you have to look at self exclusion as being a part of a 'tool bag' if you like.
Without a bit of determination, willpower etc etc its not going to work.
Is the self exclusion sysytem perfect???
No .... but then what is ??
I am obviously a member of this forum, i also came here because of those machines , but im also a betting shop manager, so whilst i couldnt give you any insight into being a person that has self excluded i could try and answer some of your questions. And to add some of my own thoughts if you dont mind??
I dont see self - exclusion as a consolation, more of a choice .... you take it or leave it??
However i do believe that when this scheme was introduced, that it was intended more for(and i hate using labels but) ' problem gamblers'
to give a bit of breathing space, time to collect thoughts etc etc etc. I read in a study somewhere that 'problem gamblers' as oppposed to compulsive gambler are creatures of habit in that they frequent regular haunts.... where as a CG would go anywhere to obtain a 'fix'..........
You ask "does it stop you going in" ?
Everyone is different, some people may not be embarressed at being asked to leave, and after refusing to leave being escorted of the premises by the old bill.......... and NO you would not be able to bet, and should you attempt to play a machine it WILL be disarmed from behind the counter..... and then there is the aggro of trying to get your money back !!!!
I know its a BIG thing for anyone to go into a bookies, go up to the counter and ask for a self exclusion form, the process is so easy once you have done so.
Your details are (or should be ) kept in a file, and your picture is NOT put on the staff room dartboard
Seriously tho, your details are only sent to any of the relevant parties that you have agreed to ie online/ telephone accounts.
You will, along with your copy of the Self exclusion form be given information to other sources of help and support , such as gamcare.
I hope this answers some of your questions
Raskolnikov, but please feel free ask anything further ..
Take Care
Kim x

[Mementomoridc]

Sarcasm is such a useful tool. But turns out facts serve you better.

Like it or not it is proven to work at the big casinos. Self exclusion is a tool that helps and it is something done by the individual to stop him visiting his local areas and if he is really trying hard to quit it stops a temporary lapse in willpower as he passes.

Sorry for the sarcastic tone, yes that was a little over the top, but you have to admit the concept as a whole while being able to stop some, the people with the "real" problems are not going to be dissuaded.

[Denny Crane!]

Sorry for the sarcastic tone, yes that was a little over the top, but you have to admit the concept as a whole while being able to stop some, the people with the "real" problems are not going to be dissuaded.

Not alone but as part of a toolbox it certainly helps. That quote I provided you with is from a gambling forum and as they say it helps with certain behaviour patterns for the problem gamblers.

When deciding whether something works I fundamentally believe that you should look at what people are telling you works, look at empirical evidence and when you do you find that exclusion and self exclusion are a definite part in aiding control of a dangerous habit. It is a bit like AA you could say, "oh yeah going and sitting in a room and talking about your feelings is going to stop someone who is suffering from a disease actually control their habit what a load of crap" well no of course not it takes a fundamental shift in the consciousness of the person and desire and AA is merely one tool to aid the person.

I mean sorry mate psychology is not cut and dried simple it is A or B. Complex problems take complex solutions and there is never one easy answer.

[Treize]

I kind of agree with him, we have online gambling in the UK and I do not think it is healthy. The sheer amount of advertising it generates is crazy. Addiction rates have gone up.

Yeah it is horribly annoying when you see to use "certain websites".

[Caligula's_Horse]

I swear, but "think of the children" has become a euphemism for "I have an ulterior motive".

Its obvious he just wants to kill off the competition. Regardless of what's your stance on gambling, it should at least be consistent. If online gambling gets banned, so should its casino based cousin, and if one is allowed, so should the other. Rule of law shouldn't play favorites.

[Roma_Victrix]

I swear, but "think of the children" has become a euphemism for "I have an ulterior motive".

Its obvious he just wants to kill off the competition. Regardless of what's your stance on gambling, it should at least be consistent. If online gambling gets banned, so should its casino based cousin, and if one is allowed, so should the other. Rule of law shouldn't play favorites.

Logical consistency is apparently too much to ask for from Sheldon. Obviously he will naturally look after his own interests and his own bottom line. However, this whole episode only underlines the incredibly corrosive influence of money in politics, and why all political campaigns should be publicly-funded. Legislation needs to be focused on the concerns of the voters exclusively, and never on donors. Unfortunately it is the completely ass-backwards other way around.

[Denny Crane!]

I mean really you do not think a billionaire business owner can have other motivations? People are going on like there is some giant threat to his empire, you do not think if he wanted he could acquire a huge stake in internet gambling if that was his desire? I could be in the drinks business making money and still be genuinely concerned say about the new trend on continental europe of vapourising and inhaling alcohol.

Plus when you already have a billion in the bank I dont think you are massively terrified that you might lose a few million a year in revenue. I am guessing if he wanted he could outright buy successful internet gambling companies.

[Mementomoridc]

I mean really you do not think a billionaire business owner can have other motivations? People are going on like there is some giant threat to his empire, you do not think if he wanted he could acquire a huge stake in internet gambling if that was his desire? I could be in the drinks business making money and still be genuinely concerned say about the new trend on continental europe of vapourising and inhaling alcohol.

Plus when you already have a billion in the bank I dont think you are massively terrified that you might lose a few million a year in revenue. I am guessing if he wanted he could outright buy successful internet gambling companies.

Take 2 hours to do some info searching on Adelson and the Koch brothers and their crap business practices and how they do anything and everything in their power to try and influence politics in the US to make them more money. Once you do that come back and tell me you think that piece of trash this thread is about cares about anything except how to make a few more bucks or screw over a competitor.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I mean really you do not think a billionaire business owner can have other motivations? People are going on like there is some giant threat to his empire, you do not think if he wanted he could acquire a huge stake in internet gambling if that was his desire? I could be in the drinks business making money and still be genuinely concerned say about the new trend on continental europe of vapourising and inhaling alcohol.

Plus when you already have a billion in the bank I dont think you are massively terrified that you might lose a few million a year in revenue. I am guessing if he wanted he could outright buy successful internet gambling companies.

People don't get that rich to begin with unless they see making money as its own reward.
Otherwise, why be billionaires at all? Quality of life stops improving with the addition of extra cash long before you hit the billion dollar mark, and managing such vast estates and finances becomes an ever increasing burden even with subordinates doing the heavy lifting.

You do have people like Bill Gates which start donating large sums (far beyond what PR demands), but they're the exception, not the rule. Most of the very rich are only looking for ways to get richer still; otherwise they wouldn't have gotten so rich to begin with--no real point to it.
Unless of course they were planning to get into politics all along, in which case there's no such thing as too much funding. Which still has them perpetually gathering funds, if for a more practical reason.

[Denny Crane!]

People don't get that rich to begin with unless they see making money as its own reward.
Otherwise, why be billionaires at all? Quality of life stops improving with the addition of extra cash long before you hit the billion dollar mark, and managing such vast estates and finances becomes an ever increasing burden even with subordinates doing the heavy lifting.

You do have people like Bill Gates which start donating large sums (far beyond what PR demands), but they're the exception, not the rule. Most of the very rich are only looking for ways to get richer still; otherwise they wouldn't have gotten so rich to begin with--no real point to it.
Unless of course they were planning to get into politics all along, in which case there's no such thing as too much funding. Which still has them perpetually gathering funds, if for a more practical reason.

At this point I am certain it is up to 100% of all American Billionaires have signed up to the Warren and Bill pledge to donate all of their fortunes on their death and philanthropy in America has never been higher.

Just a guess but this all billionaires are evil beyond a few exceptions is basically based on an intuitive guess that all rich people are evil dicks and capitalism is evil.

Forgive me for not believing that reasoning.

[Roma_Victrix]

At this point I am certain it is up to 100% of all American Billionaires have signed up to the Warren and Bill pledge to donate all of their fortunes on their death and philanthropy in America has never been higher.

Just a guess but this all billionaires are evil beyond a few exceptions is basically based on an intuitive guess that all rich people are evil dicks and capitalism is evil.

Forgive me for not believing that reasoning.

"Evil" is a very loaded, one-dimensional term that is often misapplied. Sociopath serial killers are often so mentally deranged that it is better to describe them as having a sickness or mental illness than calling them evil. I suppose some dictators like Pol Pot and Hitler deserve the monicker for their utter and callous disregard for hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions of lives. However, billionaires who hoard money and do little to share via charity and philanthropy aren't evil, they're just selfish self-centered dicks. However, last I checked that's not a crime. People can do what they want with their own money. That being said, that doesn't mean we should all just lie down and take the they shovel, including their self-serving campaigns to buy our politicians and essentially turn them into tools that exist merely to look out for their exclusive business interests.

Get money out of politics, now! Otherwise one man, one vote is meaningless when Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and other billionaires can virtually buy the equivalent of entire districts worth of voters with their unlimited piggy banks. You'd have to be blind not to see their influence on major pieces of legislation. Regulation of gambling would represent just a tiny fraction of that influence.

[Denny Crane!]

"Evil" is a very loaded, one-dimensional term that is often misapplied. Sociopath serial killers are often so mentally deranged that it is better to describe them as having a sickness or mental illness than calling them evil. I suppose some dictators like Pol Pot and Hitler deserve the monicker for their utter and callous disregard for hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions of lives. However, billionaires who hoard money and do little to share via charity and philanthropy aren't evil, they're just selfish self-centered dicks. However, last I checked that's not a crime. People can do what they want with their own money. That being said, that doesn't mean we should all just lie down and take the they shovel, including their self-serving campaigns to buy our politicians and essentially turn them into tools that exist merely to look out for their exclusive business interests.

Get money out of politics, now! Otherwise one man, one vote is meaningless when Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and other billionaires can virtually buy the equivalent of entire districts worth of voters with their unlimited piggy banks. You'd have to be blind not to see their influence on major pieces of legislation. Regulation of gambling would represent just a tiny fraction of that influence.

My point was it was clearly a statement founded in, "Well I know Bill Gates and that but they dont count because clearly my negative opinions of rich people have to be founded on something right....right???"

I am open to healthy scepticism though you are right and it isnt totally out of the ballpark that the guy is a douche I would rather just not assume so purely because he is rich you know what I mean?

[Caligula's_Horse]

At this point I am certain it is up to 100% of all American Billionaires have signed up to the Warren and Bill pledge to donate all of their fortunes on their death and philanthropy in America has never been higher.

Just a guess but this all billionaires are evil beyond a few exceptions is basically based on an intuitive guess that all rich people are evil dicks and capitalism is evil.

Forgive me for not believing that reasoning.

Where did you get the idea that was my reasoning? Its less about so-called evil (never could find a widely agreed upon definition for that vague term), and more about simple hoarding.

I was merely stating fact. There is no real reason to gather such large sums unless you're trying to get into politics and looking to fund your own political movement. Whether you have 100 million or 1 billion, it doesn't really matter. Unless buying a small country is what you're after, both are more then sufficient for any and all realistic needs. Its the difference between having one private island, and ten of them. What are you going to do with ten private islands?
The obvious conclusion is that the man with ten private islands is looking to make money for its own sake. What other reason could he have?

As for philanthropy having never been higher, well and good. Of course, that might just be an indication it was always low, and is only recently picking up...

But honestly, you couldn't possibly believe a billionaire with ownership over physical casinos could possibly be ideologically or morally opposed to online gambling. It has hypocrite written all over it.