I realize that I’m behind the curve and preaching to the
saved and all that. Yes, RAWA is dead
for now (unless they sneak it in), and more conservative voices are speaking
out against the cronyism move to grant long-time GOP supporter Sheldon Adelson
his “due” by passing a bill that “restores America’s Wire Act” and puts the
official kibosh on online gaming.
Still, my duty is to monitor the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling’s
(CSIG) website and Facebook pages, and the rhetoric has been coming fast and
furious of late. So much so that it had
me convinced that a RAWA strike was imminent during the lame duck session. For once I was very glad to be very
wrong. Still, they keep posting and
talking, and now have new video ads (highlighted by Steve Ruddock here). And I ask myself:
- Are they saying anything new? (no)
- Are they saying anything compelling…and believable?
Well, that’s what this post attempts to analyze. Part Two will deal with the hypocrisy of
their messages. Here in Part One we will deal with
the accuracy of their “usually fear-based” claims.
People can have opinions and be quite zealous about them. Blindly so, sometimes. It’s been often noted that Sheldon Adelson is
very passionate about the subject of online gambling, and his minions in the
CSIG seem to share that passion. They
all seem to have very strong opinions, and opinions of themselves can’t be “wrong,”
but the facts supporting those opinions CAN be.
Take the oft-stated claim that allowing online gambling in
the US would be like having 300 million individual casinos in the US. CSIG touts this fear and also posts
the latest numbers from Delaware Nevada, and New Jersey (with glee) when there
are monthly declines in those states’ online revenues (they never post when
numbers are up – can’t imagine why not).
The disappointing returns so far in these three states in 2014 would
tend to show that the idea of 300 million individual casinos via our cell
phones and tablets is delusional at
best. Most Americans are too otherwise
occupied or busy or just don’t care enough to go online and gamble. Or, to put it another way – they just don’t
give a shit.
One of the biggest fears that CSIG has utilized in their campaign
is the potential for money laundering and other criminal activity through
online gaming. They use “bits and pieces”
of an old FBI letter that does in fact state that there is the potential for
same…just as there is potential in ANY activity where money is handled,
including LAND BASED CASINOS. They
conveniently omit this from their scare-mongering. This potential for “easy money laundering”
used to be the strongest card in their hand, until James Thackston’s website
showed how utterly ridiculous this was. Remember
the USA
Today op-ed he penned with Former New York Gov. George Pataki? We might not know what
hole Thackston escaped to, but Pataki is back on the CSIG website in a new
video ad spouting the same nonsense.
Again, we’ve had almost a full year of online action on regulated sites
in three states, and if there WAS any money laundering or other nefarious activity,
you’d think CSIG would be all over that.
And so far?
[crickets]
Another oft-made claim – one that Adelson himself is most
passionate about, was recently articulated by former San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown (and I use the term “articulate” gingerly here) and former Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in two
more new video ads. Brown, a former
advocate for online poker, discusses how these groups “target” young people. Lincoln knows land based casinos have regulations
in place “to protect minors and promote responsible gambling.” Yet she seems ignorant of same with online
gambling, claiming these protections are simply “not available.”
Again, we’ve had a year of legal online gaming on regulated
sites in three states. Total number of
reported minors caught online? Less than
the number caught at the Bethlehem Sands land-based casino in Pennsylvania
(none reported so far, to be accurate).
Here’s another worry-based “claim” that has no basis in reality.
And what of Brown’s targeting claims? I’ve repeatedly wondered why CSIG doesn’t
show us any examples of how young people are targeted by online gaming. Brown mentioned something about super-heroes
and cartoon characters, but no real examples.
I assume he’s talking about characters like these guys:
And if that seems a bit hypocritical, it is, and that’s the
biggest reason to take much of what comes from Adelson and CSIG with many, many
grains of salt. And we will discuss that
hypocrisy next post.
Your comments and snark are always welcome here.
No comments:
Post a Comment