(Ed. note: This comes to me via my stepson, Adam, who, though he can’t beat me on the golf course, CAN argue me straight into the ground. So, what DOES Internet gambling have to do with the war against terrorism. Well, nothing…unless you’re a Republican desperately angling for votes this November.)
Going into the weekend, Congress was focused on finishing up their business before adjourning to hit the campaign trails for November’s elections. Among the most urgent bills being considered was the SAFE Port Act (with the trademark ridiculous acronym: Security and Accountability For Every Port Act.) This piece of legislation, passed late Saturday night, was designed to enhance security at US ports through increased inspection and monitoring regimes. The careful reader will notice that it also has something interesting attached to it. If you scroll down in the table of contents, you will notice Title VIII - Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement.
This bit of legislation, in a nutshell (see page 213 in the above link if you’d like to crack the nut), forbids US banks, financial intermediaries, and credit card companies from facilitating the placing of bets via online casinos. It further directs the Department of Justice and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to implement enforcement mechanisms.
While I have several problems with this piece of legislation, its biggest flaw lies not in the text, but in what is absent from it and the motivations laid bare by these omissions. To begin, let’s take a trip back in time to September 14, 2006.
On this date in history, Republican leaders procedurally killed an amendment to this very same port security bill. The amendment was offered by Senator Clinton, and was designed to provide $5,800 per year for five years to each first responder stricken with illnesses stemming from exposure to the dust, chemicals, and debris at ground zero on 9/11. All told, the cost of the plan would be nearly $2 billion. Two important facts must be pointed out here:
Hundreds of aid recipients under the Clinton plan were working for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on 9/11.
Those that didn’t work directly for the Port Authority were responding to a disaster centered on a property managed by the Port Authority itself. These two facts inextricably link this proposed amendment to the idea of port security.
Why are these facts crucial? Because the amendment was never even brought to a vote, nor was it ever judged on its merits. Instead, it was blocked for the following reason: the amendment was “not germane” to the issue of port security. Let’s go back to the future.
During our two week journey, our trusted representatives in Washington have apparently decided that internet gambling is more closely related to port security than medical care for Port Authority employees. This is a perfect example of pathetic, blatant election-year garbage coming from Congress. How do I know this? One of the key backers of the gaming amendment is the Honorable Bill Frist, M.D., of Tennessee. Only a few weeks before helping to simultaneously sabotage Clinton’s amendment while promoting the gambling ban, Frist was at a hearing in Iowa “to listen to concerns about Internet gambling.” Gee, why would a Senator from Tennessee decide to attend a meeting in Iowa only weeks before passing legislation that does exactly what the people of Iowa want? What the hell is the Iowa caucus anyway?
Now that we’ve learned valuable lessons about the “germaneness” of Internet gambling to port security, let’s turn our attention to the other glaring omission in SAFE Port Act’s Title VIII - the concession to the horseracing industry and why it proves that even the explicitly stated intentions of our trusted representatives are not genuine. No electable representative from Kentucky or other state where horseracing is popular would dare let a ban on internet gambling through if it outlawed wagering on horse races. Perhaps that’s why this little bit of stupidity appears in the SAFE Ports Act:
“Sense of Congress - … this subchapter shall not change which activities related to horse racing may or may not be allowed under federal law.”
As well as this:
“The term ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where - … the bet or wager does not violate any provision of … the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978” These passages become law despite the fact that Congress lists as its main finding for the purpose of enacting this law that “Internet gambling is a growing cause of collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.” I guess only poker and blackjack players cause these problems, while people who play the ponies are noble gamblers. Who knew?
It’s almost as if the whole thing were crafted around its ability to pass, be signed, and be used as a weapon in November ‘06 and ‘08. But our beloved government would never leverage our ignorance or its power in such a fashion… would it? It’s a sad state of affairs when legislation can be picked apart to expose hypocrisy and arrogance at the highest levels of government without even touching the substance of the policy. We deserve better.
