In defense of his online gambling regulation regulation, HR 2267, Chairman Barney Frank told the House Financial Services Committee that his motivation to write the measure goes beyond increasing revenue and is directly concerned with ensuring freedom . Frank said that the government should only restrict choice if there is direct harm to another person, which is not the case with online gambling.
Spencer Bachus, a leading voice in Congress against gaming bills, said the Frank bill would offer “gambling in every home, computer, blackberry, iPod”. He said states should make the decision to allow internet gaming instead of forcing them to do so.
“This bill, if it imposed anything, imposes freedom,” Republican John Campbell of California replied to Bachus’ concerns. Campbell noted that US citizens would have increased and not narrowed the selection once the bill was passed.
Bachus went on to say the effect of the proposal would be to redistribute wealth from poor Americans to foreign gambling providers. He tried to take advantage of the rebellious rejection of government expansion by the grassroots and socialist redistribution of wealth for an inappropriate connection to online casinos.
But Frank replied irritably, calling Bachus’ arguments and telling him that the bill was about “allowing people to voluntarily make decisions that they disapprove of”. Frank said US citizens should be free to make their own choices without the consent of church groups “or the Christian Science Monitor or whoever”.
When a committee member suggested tying the bill to Jim McDermott’s online gambling revenue proposal or other such bill detailing the tax collection, Frank even found that while the revenue was a nice addition, he said however, his measure sees it as “a fundamental issue of freedom.”
The bill was provisionally approved with an official appeal from members that is due to take place today.
Published on July 28, 2010 by JoshuaMcCarthy