Published On: Wed, Apr 19th, 2017

Online Gambling shouldn’t be Subjected to an Unconstitutional Ban by the Congress

Share This

washingtonLynn Westmoreland was a Republican member of the U.S. House from 2005 to 2017. He served Georgia as a member of the state House of Representatives. During his tenure, he came across plenty of legislation and also dealt with its unintended consequences. Some of the examples include Obamacare, tax regulations, and so on.


Unintended consequences


But Lynn considers them to be ‘common’ examples of legislation with unintended consequences. He says that the legislation which is implemented under “special circumstances” for benefiting a specific industry actually typically has the nastiest unintended consequences.


Westmoreland has been keeping a track of the special legislation in Georgia that allowed for the operation of “destination resort” casinos. He observed that there has been a reintroduction of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act or RAWA in Congress. According to the proponents of this Act, the aim of the legislation is to simply offer protection to children and save them online gambling. So nobody should have any criticism against that, right?


However, this is a good example of what Lynn calls a “special circumstance” legislative bill which would overrule the decisions of people from individual states.


Is legislation needed?


The big question is this: is there really a need for the legislation? At present, there are only 3 states which allow legal online gaming: Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey. RAWA would end up banning online gaming in all the fifty states and this may have a significant impact on the government structure.


Even though perspectives and attitudes have changed over the years, Georgia has always been known to frown upon gambling. It always maintained an extremely strict legislation against gambling. This includes a ban on betting on dog and horse races. Currently, the state does not permit casinos as well.


RAWA is seeking to make changes to the old structures of independent, self-governing states by getting the federal government to decide gambling legislation for everyone. The idea is to have a powerful central government which promotes uniformity across all American states rather than acknowledging their uniqueness as showcased in their individual state laws.


While casino advocates such as Sheldon Adelson might be supportive of outlawing Internet gaming as a means for driving business to the physical casinos, even the people of Georgia, who are otherwise opposed to gambling, need to see this as a subtle effort to centralize all power in the city of Washington.

About the Author

- iGaming & land based specialist reporter for the global gaming market