Rep. Frank Gives Libertarian View on Internet Gambling Policy 
Ian Martinez 

27 October 2003
Warren's Washington Internet Daily
Volume 4; Issue 207
 
Rep. Frank (D-Mass.) told a Cato Institute conference last week he continued 
to oppose existing legislation that would restrict online gambling by 
shutting down access to credit cards because he didn't think it should be 
viewed as a crime. Appealing to Cato's Libertarian sensibilities, he said 
"there are clear cases when the only possible victim of an act is the person 
who decided to engage in that act." Frank repeatedly referred to gambling as 
a victimless crime, an assertion later supported by fellow speakers -- 
researchers from various universities. "I'm so busy trying to defend people 
from 'forces over which they have no control,'" Frank said, that "I have no 
time to protect people from themselves." 

In a criticism of fellow liberals in Congress, Frank said the liberals' 
attitude toward gambling contradicted their commitment to civil liberties. 
"Gambling is seen as tacky," he said, and liberals disapprove. "Gambling is 
to liberals as pornography is to conservatives," he quipped, implying each 
side had an unreasonable moral compulsion to regulate harmless behavior. 
Frank said an individual's after-tax money was and should be unregulated by 
government: "I don't think we should set ourselves up as the national 
household budget manager." 

A bill (S-627) by Sen. Kyl (R-Ariz.), which has been cleared for a Senate 
floor vote, is similar to one by House Financial Services Financial 
Institutions Chmn. Bachus (R- Ala.) that would shut off money from credit 
cards to online gambling sites. The House bill would make an exception for 
state-sponsored online gambling such as horse racing, legitimate casinos and 
jai alai frontons. Kyl's bill was modified in the Senate Banking Committee 
to remove that exception. Frank said those exemptions revealed "how 
preposterous it [a ban] is. The thing does start to unravel" once the 
various exceptions are brought into play. He said he didn't expect the 
Senate bill would get enough votes for a majority this year, but he couldn't 
speak for next year. 

The other 3 panelists -- Raymond Sauer of Clemson U., Koleman Strumpf of the 
U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Robin Hanson of George Mason U. -- all 
supported Frank's position that internet gambling would not allow itself to 
be outlawed and that free market forces would counteract any federal 
attempts to ban the activity. "The very act of prohibition can and would 
make some of the potential faults people have with gambling worse," Strumpf 
said. He said the illegal gambling industry in the U.S. generated as much 
income as the recording industry, so regulating it "is inherently likely to 
fail." 

--