Two US politicians who introduced a bill that would reverse the Wire Act and make online betting illegal claim that their bill would just create a "time out" that would allow debate on the issue.
The interesting argument was written by Senator Lindsey Graham and Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz in an op-ed in The Hill publication. The two criticize the US Department of Justice, who ruled that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting and effectively allowed individual states to offer legal online betting.
The two politicians use many of the argument points of Sheldon Adelson's Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, and offer very little in terms of new arguments or information.
In the piece the two wrote: "We unequivocally oppose the legalization of online gaming. However, whether one supports or opposes online gaming, there are valid reasons to subject this far-reaching decision to public scrutiny."
The duo also go on to say that the 2011 Wire Act reversal "...unleashes the potential for a completely unregulated gambling industry to be imposed nationwide."
Other points include how the Republican politicians should debate online gambling, including that any change in online betting should be "...driven from the bottom up, not imposed from the top down. A full and fair hearing process is the right approach. We should hold Congressional hearings, consider legislation, have a public debate and hear the whole spectrum of arguments on this topic before ultimately taking a vote."
Why a ban needs to be implemented to encourage such a debate is not explained by the politicians, nor is the reasoning why they support taking away rights from individual states.
Those interested in reading the article can do so by clicking the following link: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/202699-online-gaming-debate-deserves-a-...