Gambling wasn’t a topic that is hot this presidential campaign, and also this is especially true on 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 can only take place if the ongoing party rejects RAWA, an item of legislation he has previously called ‘unconstitutional.’
‘These younger voters expect Republicans to consistently defend individual liberty and limited government,’ he penned. ‘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 liberty with cronyism.’
Conservative Nanny State
RAWA ended up being introduced in the Senate by Graham in June, and co-sponsored by Rubio, among others. Both have actually rejected that their enthusiasm for the bill is connected to feasible campaign contributions from billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.
While Adelson is really a ally that is longtime major donor towards the Republican Party, Paul’s stance illustrates that numerous GOP people are somewhat less enthusiastic by just what RAWA means, specifically the curtailing of individual freedom and of United States states’ rights to determine their very own gambling regulations.
Paul believes that numerous people that are young the party’s stand on specific freedom, but are alienated by the ‘hypocrisy’ of those who will be ready to abandon their thinking in those freedoms when it suits them.
‘Those with moral objections to gambling have the right to try and persuade their citizens that are fellow not gamble,’ he wrote. ‘ What they do not have the proper doing is use government force to stop people from participating in tasks, like gambling, that do not involve force or fraud.’
‘A ‘conservative’ nanny state is simply as unconstitutional, and also 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 has accused him of using his economic clout to influence US policy that is foreign. It is no coincidence, suggests Paul, that Graham and Rubio also happen to be ‘two associated with the biggest hawks in Congress.’
‘This donor [Adelson] has chosen not to operate a on-line casino, and, in the place of fairly compete with his online rivals, he is attempting to use his influence to outlaw Internet gambling.
‘It is hard to imagine a better method 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 create lemons.’
Son Rand Paul continues his bid for the GOP candidacy, but appears to be dropping straight back in recent polls. He’s said that, like his dad, he opposes federal government intervention into the gambling debate that is online.