Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Apr
11
I don’t know how I came across this today and I can’t find the original Los Angeles Times article referenced in numerous other places, but I did find this American Prospect piece that compares Barack Obama’s comments/stance on gambling to Hillary Clinton’s.
According to the Prospect, she’s received nearly three times more money from the gaming industry than Obama but, the Prospect concludes, either candidate will have little impact on gambing.
What is clear is that state and local governments play a much more significant role than Congress and the federal government when it comes to regulating the gaming industry. Clinton and Obama have both indicated they support states’ rights in determining many internal issues. (Every state but Utah and Hawaii has legalized gambling.) The role of the president may be more about setting the tone on this issue than actually pushing legislation through.
Well, the tone of not liking expansion works for me. From the Democratic Underground quoting the LA Times article I can’t find:
When asked by the LA Times on January 18th about the social costs of gambling, Clinton replied, “Any human activity has social costs, really,” she said, adding later: “Life is filled with trade-offs, and you have to do the best you can to balance the pluses and the minuses.”
Mrs. Clinton’s big gaming industry fundraisers include the senior executives of Harrahs, Jan Jones and Philip Satre.
In contrast, Senator Obama has never been in favor of the expansion of gambling, saying that the “moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating.” And, with casinos, “you’ll have a whole bunch of people who can’t afford it gambling their money away, yet they’re going to do it.” As a State Senator, Obama has opposed expanding all gambling projects in Illinois, although he does not oppose all gambling, such as in Nevada.
According to this website, Obama supports Internet policing of online gambling.
What I like about all this information is vindication – you can be a liberal and still be against the expansion of gambling. Which, of course, I’ve known all along but it seems now that if you support Barack Obama, you are also going to have to accept his long-held opposition to gambling.
NB: Obama does, however, love poker. Anomalies R Us. I love it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:54 am April 11th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Business, Campaigning, Culture, Economy, Elections, Gambling, Government, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Primary, Social Issues, WH2008
Comments
2 Responses to “Obama and I agree: gambling inflicts social costs & should not expand”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Obviously this is why Strickland backed Hillary Clinton.
the business model of a casino is pretty simple: people show up, give you their money, and leave.
You gotta let a few of them “win” money to keep more coming back. Online gambling is like a Casino without the expenses of running a casino. For this reason it should be regulated. There’s no reason a little subroutine in the computer programs can’t give one guy winning cards on all the right hands.