Over the past week, several different opinions on both sides of the online gaming and poker fight have come to the forefront. Whether they have been for or against the issue, the bottom line is that both sides are demonstrating a level of hypocrisy regarding the subject.
Last week, Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was interviewed on MSNBC by host Chuck Todd as to his opinion on the wealthy oligarchs that are using their wealth to influence politics in the United States. Reid mentioned that the Koch brothers were “evil” in their intents but gave free pass to another member of that club, Democratic supporter George Soros. His comments regarding one of the most fervent opponents of online gaming and poker, however, were perhaps the most stunning.
“I know Sheldon Adelson. He’s not in this for the money,” Reid commented to Todd in the interview. “He’s in it because he has certain ideological views.” One of those runs counter to something that Reid has lukewarmly supported, federal online gaming regulation (Reid supports online poker action, but a ban on other forms of online gaming). Adelson has stated he would spend “whatever it takes” to stop federal regulation, even to the point of a national ban.
That ideological difference doesn’t seem to bother Reid, however, or the money that Adelson is spending to influence political races across the country. “Sheldon Adelson’s social views are in keeping with the Democrats,” Reid surprisingly stated to Todd. “On choice, on all kinds of things. So, Sheldon Adelson, don’t pick on him. He’s not in it to make money.”
The second point of hypocrisy came yesterday from investigative reporter Ben Swann. On his website, Swann recounted the hypocritical stance of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and his Adelson-led push to enact the federal ban regarding online gaming and poker. What was perhaps the most telling part of Swann’s report, however, were comments from Graham himself.
In a video clip, Swann’s reporter Ben Mulch was able to capture some of Graham’s comments on the legislation he introduced. When asked about Senate Bill 2159 (entitled “The Restoration of America’s Wire Act“), Graham says inaccurately, “The Wire Act prohibited transfer of money for online gambling.” The Wire Act of 1961 only prohibited the transfer of betting information on sporting events over telephone lines, completely different from what Graham indicates. He then goes on to typify online gaming and poker as “the Wild Wild West” before offering his unconditional support for Adelson after denying he attended a personal fundraiser held by the billionaire for Graham’s reelection campaign.
Yesterday another part of the hypocrisy emerged from California, which is currently debating the issue of online poker for its state. Former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who was at one time one of the proponents of online gaming and poker in the Golden State prior to his departure from the legislator, announced that he has joined Adelson’s Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling as a national co-chairman of the group and the California chair for the push. In the Los Angeles Times, Brown (who teamed with State Senator Rod Wright for the pro-gaming effort before Wright’s legal troubles removed him from the fight) enunciates his reasons for the switch.
“There are a multitude of reasons to oppose the expansion of Internet gambling,” Brown said in an open letter. “I was once on the wrong side of this issue — speaking for and supporting Internet poker — but I have since learned about some of the tactics used by online gambling companies to lure young people.”
What Brown doesn’t report is another potential reason for his switch. Along with another former member of the California General Assembly, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Brown has created an organization called Mercury Public Affairs. According to the Times, that organization has received $175,000 over the past six months from Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corporation for lobbying efforts against California legislation. The CSIG would not admit to how much more money Brown is receiving through his chair efforts.
The overwhelming demonstration over these three cases demonstrates that it is money rather than individual commitment or belief that is driving much of the discussion. The complete hypocrisy on both sides leaves supporters of online gaming and poker wondering where the “power players” are for the pro-side of the game and why they don’t speak up more vehemently.