Tea Party Conservatives Support Efforts to Quash UIGEA

RE: Markup of HR 2267 Tuesday

by , Jul 26, 2010 | 11:24 am

The battle over Barney Frank’s HR 2267 is heating up, and he seems to have found allies in sensible albeit unusual places. Specifically, supporting efforts to dismantle – or at least rebuke and revise – the UIGEA are the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks.

A letter they all sent to Congressional members yesterday:

July 25, 2010

Dear Member:

In the next few days, you will consider legislation that would modify the regulation of Internet gambling. We have a variety of opinions about the specifics of the bill but, as representatives and employees free market organizations, we all strongly believe that the current government regulations intended to prohibit Internet gambling are destructive, burdensome, and unfair.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, and the Wire Act all need review and revision. The legislation you are about to consider about would make some necessary revisions particularly to the burdensome, silly, and destructive regulations contained within UIEGA.

Certainly, other approaches need to be tried. The ideas contained in the bill you are about to consider are certainly worth your careful consideration and attention.

Yours truly,

Eli Lehrer
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

Grover Norqist
Americans for Tax Reform

Wayne Brough
Chief Economist

Michelle Minton
Director of Insurance Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute

10 Comments to “Tea Party Conservatives Support Efforts to Quash UIGEA ”

  1. Kevin Mathers

    Congressman Ron Paul’s statement from last week’s hearing:


  2. DanM

    wow, i’ve been looking for this from ron paul all year! it’s big explanation the “movement” needs — how adding regulations fits within a smaller government world.

  3. Bill

    Looked to me like most of the tea party folks were against us in the vote.

  4. DanM

    ill get a breakdown of the exact votes up soon. found it semi-odd that my main man ron paul was the one who voted “present”. do we have any of his constituents here? if so we can get better answers to such questions.

  5. Kevin Mathers

    Do you think if his vote was really needed, he would have voted for HR 2267?

  6. DanM

    i gotta think yes, but then why not anyway?

  7. Michelle

    Perhaps the reason Paul didn’t support the bill was related to the 10 amendments attached to it before the vote. Many of those were protectionist, anti-competitive measures.

  8. DanM

    Hmm, good point, and gotta think most likely right. Michelle, do you by chance know how much change a bill at this point could see in the actual language before it get voted on?

  9. piefarmer

    GamingCounsel had a twitter link to Ron Paul’s full statement on HR2267. He’s for legalized online gaming, but against the taxation.

  10. Kevin Mathers

    That statement is also in the first comment of this post.