Gambling hasn’t been a hot subject in this presidential campaign, and also this is especially true in the Democratic side, where candidates haven’t been forced to take a position on the Restoration of America’s Wire Act. Still, some candidates do have records that are limited it comes to casinos and gambling issues:
Ron Paul says Graham and Rubio’s sponsorship of RAWA is unconstitutional. (Image: politico.com)
Former congressman that is republican Paul has urged the GOP to reject RAWA and embrace the philosophy of individual liberty, or risk losing the youth vote.
The former GOP presidential candidate and chairman of the Campaign for Liberty said that young voters’ disaffection with President Obama could present an opportunity for the Republican Party to capture their ballots in an op-ed piece for U.S. News & World Report. But that will only happen if the party rejects RAWA, an item of legislation he has previously called ‘unconstitutional.’
‘These more youthful voters anticipate Republicans to consistently defend liberty that is individual limited government,’ he composed. ‘Millennial voters also expect the GOP to oppose crony capitalism, even ….when the cronies are GOP donors.
‘Sadly, two presidential candidates, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida, are supporting legislation that combines an assault that is unconstitutional individual freedom with cronyism.’
Conservative Nanny State
RAWA had been introduced within the Senate by Graham in June, and co-sponsored by Rubio, among others. Both have rejected that their enthusiasm for the bill is associated with campaign that is possible from billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.
While Adelson is a longtime ally and major donor to your Republican Party, Paul’s stance illustrates that numerous GOP users are somewhat less enthusiastic by exactly what RAWA represents, namely the curtailing of individual freedom and of US states’ rights to find out their own gambling regulations.
Paul thinks that lots of people that are young the party’s stand on specific freedom, but are alienated by the ‘hypocrisy’ of people who are ready to abandon their values in those freedoms when it suits them.
‘Those with moral objections to gambling have the right to try to persuade their fellow citizens to not gamble,’ he wrote. ‘ What they cannot have the right doing is make use of government force to stop individuals from doing tasks, like gambling, which do not involve force or fraud.’
‘A ‘conservative’ nanny state is just as unconstitutional, and as dangerous to freedom, as a liberal one,’ he added.
Clearly, Paul is no fan of Adelson. A staunch anti-interventionist, he has been critical of the Sands CEO’s hawkish inclinations in the past and it has accused him of using his financial clout to influence US international policy. It is no coincidence, suggests Paul, that Graham and Rubio also are actually ‘two associated with the biggest hawks in Congress.’
‘This donor [Adelson] has chosen never to operate a online casino, and, in the place of fairly compete with their online rivals, he could be wanting to use their influence to outlaw Internet gambling.
‘It is hard to assume a better way to alienate millennial voters than by supporting another infringement that is unconstitutional their freedom to be able to aid one billionaire [neoconservative],’ he concludes. ‘Any politician who bets on the iGaming ban is bound to come up with lemons.’
Son Rand Paul continues his bid for the GOP candidacy, but appears become dropping right back in recent polls. He’s said that, like his daddy, he opposes government intervention in the gambling debate that is online.