Online Poker and the Republican Rift

Apparently, Wired News thinks that the ban on online gambling has its days numbered. And they're probably right. The reason it's likely to fold, however, illustrates a growing Republican rift that is already seen often in Texas, and is accelerating across the nation.

According to Wired, Rep. Barney Frank has introduced legislation to repeal the ban on transactions between American banks and online casinos that effectively ended online gambling, instead regulating the practice to crack down on cheating, curb compulsive gamblers, and the like. Rep. Bob Wexler has a narrower bill lined up that would still prohibit games of chance like roulette and craps, only permitting games with a skill component to them. Wired points out the hypocrisy of prohibiting online gambling to "protect America's morals," while still permitting online horse betting under a loophole worked in by a powerful and wealthy lobby; they also note the WTO's opposition, ruling that the U.S. ban also unfairly closes the door on offshore casinos.

I wait with bated breath for the day that pointing out hypocrisy in the Republican camp is sufficient to get them to reconsider their cause. I would be almost as excited to see the day when they choose to respectfully consider the opinion of an international organization with regards to American legislation. But the reason that Democrats will succeed in reversing the ban will probably be a much more traditionally effective one: money.

As the Wired article cites, legalization and regulation of online gambling could raise about $3.5 billion in tax revenue every year. This number would inevitably go up as the industry grows, as it did with alcohol post-Prohibition. That tax revenue gives Democrats a natural ally they are not used to having: fiscally conservative Republicans. The same breed of legislator that pushed for the Texas Lotto would be open to letting gambling's popularity be controlled by market forces instead of legislative prohibition — all the while skimming a bit of profit off the top, of course, perhaps to be earmarked for education, or simply so they can more easily justify the next tax cut. They won't be making any friends among the social conservatives on their side of the aisle, of course.

But if this state legislative session was any indicator, it would seem like the unlikely bedfellows of social and fiscal conservativism are finally getting sick of one or the other stealing the sheets. State Democrats were able to successfully build coalitions by playing one side of the Republican rift against the other, as when they allied with socially conservative legislators to get the CHIP spending increase compromise passed. It is fascinating to see this same rift play itself out on the federal level. It also leaves one wondering: where does the real Republican base lie? I'm sure the Republican presidential candidates would love to be able to properly identify and appeal to their core constituency, but as the division between the interests of the smaller group of generally higher-income, higher-education level fiscal conservatives and the lower-income, but much more prevalent, social conservatives becomes much more obvious to voters, I'm not sure their "core constituency" is very easily defined. All this makes for a 2008 general election that will be a politics wonk's dream to watch.