Just spoke with an aide to a Republican congressman who, as far as congressmen go, is about as libertarian as it gets, save for Ron Paul. The aide told me that much to his chagrin, said congressman will be backing the ban on Internet gambling. What’s more, the aide says the congressman actually understands the economics of prohibitions, he just thinks that this will be the one time they don’t apply.

The aide said when a constituent wrote a letter about the issue, he himself wrote a reply with boilerplate language about the futility of prohibitions. The congressman sent the letter back with a stark red line through the boilerplate verbiage, with instructiosn to take it out.

“For some reason, he thinks this is one instance where government can actually pull it off,” the aide said.

Unbelievable.

Internet gambling is of course already illegal. That’s why gaming sites set up and operate offshore (several are actually traded on the London Stock Exchange). Yet it’s still a $12 billion industry in the U.S.

But golly. If we just try harder, and give government more power, maybe this will be the one vice we can stamp out for good. Because gambling prohibitions have worked so well in the past.

According to the New York Times, the gambling ban moves the House floor for a vote next week, where it’s almost certain to pass.

Here’s the best part:

The majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, announced a few days ago that the measure would be voted on this summer as part of what the Republicans call their American Values Agenda.

So because the Republicans have garnered public scorn for their corruption, lust for power, and morally bankrupt governance of the past 12 years, they’ve decided to make a last-ditch attempt to hold on to power by cracking down on the moral transgressions of their constituents.

Super.

The Times piece also looks at the free trade implications of a gambling ban. The Goodlatte-Leach bill will certainly exacerbate existing trade tensions between the U.S. and the 80 or so countries that allow online gambling. But many of those tensions have been bubbling over for years. This bill brings up some new problems.

Because the bill effectively deputizes banks to sniff out and eradicate gambling among their customers (the creepy privacy implications there ought to kill this bill by themselves), it amounts to a piece of blatantly protectionist legislation, in that its practical effect will be to shield a domestic company (PayPal, which is owned by eBay) from foreign competitors like FirePay and Netteller.

I’ve explained a bit more about how this will work here.

Thus far, when countries like Antigua have challenged the U.S. gambling ban on free trade grounds, the Bush administration has fought tooth and nail to impose its values on the rest of the world, er, defend its right to police the private lives of American citizens. Meaning the administration has used millions of taxpayer dollars to prevent more liberty-minded countries from making too much freedom available to U.S. taxpayers over the Internet.

But kicking Antigua around is one thing. When Britain mounts a challenge, this will all get much more interesting.

Gotta’ love the party of limited government.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Gambling and Poker, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.