Didn't Mike Lee used to be considered a "liberty" politician? What about this then...

[ProIndividual]

This is crony capitalism 101, and a violation of individual liberty. This is both unethical and anti-free market (attempting to limit competition for established brick and mortar casinos):

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has introduced new anti-online poker bill S.3376: "A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers." Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are cosponsors.

Chavitz did something similar after getting lobbying dollars from Sheldon Adelson (casino mogul) earlier this year or last year...

[John F Kennedy III]

Yeah he used to be. Hopefully he's unseated soon.

[specsaregood]

This is crony capitalism 101, and a violation of individual liberty. This is both unethical and anti-free market (attempting to limit competition for established brick and mortar casinos):

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has introduced new anti-online poker bill S.3376: "A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers." Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are cosponsors.

Chavitz did something similar after getting lobbying dollars from Sheldon Adelson (casino mogul) earlier this year or last year...

And what exactly is wrong with that proposed bill?

[ProIndividual]

And what exactly is wrong with that proposed bill?

You aren't against crony capitalism, aren't a free market advocate, and aren't for individual liberty? What a question...

[Ender]

Mike Lee is still very conservative/libertarian.

Here is his POV on the issue.

States Should Decide
Sen. Mike Lee on conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

Nick Gillespie from the October 2014 issue - view article in the Digital Edition

Since 2011, Republican Mike Lee has served as the junior senator from Utah. During that time he's made a name for himself as one of the more libertarian-spirited members of The World's Greatest Deliberative Body. He's been critical of both Democrats and Republicans, but he's also been constructive, proposing more oversight on federal surveillance activities as well as innovative tax reform plans. In June, Reason TV's Nick Gillespie spoke with Lee about conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

Q: You take aim at a lot of Republican policy mistakes as well as Democratic ones. Do you see the Obama administration as a continuation of the George Bush years in terms of growing government interference in the economy, reckless foreign policy, and reckless disregard for Americans' civil liberties?

A: I would certainly say that civil liberties have suffered under this administration. I think we've seen more government surveillance in this administration, and I think it's troubling to a lot of Americans. I voted against the reauthorization of the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act [in 2008], and I did so at a time when there were very few Republicans willing to do that.

Q: Do you primarily identify as a conservative rather than a libertarian? And is that a meaningful distinction to you?

A: Generally I call myself a conservative, sometimes a constitutional conservative. My focus is on the fact that when we maintain a consistent effort to restrain the government's power and influence to those powers identified in the Constitution, that's where we strike the right balance between what kind of government we need and what kind of government we don't want.

Q: Talk a little bit about your federalism. For instance, recently you said that the definition of marriage should be remanded to the states or lower levels of government.

A: It's not that it should be remanded to the states. It's that that's a state power. It always was state power. It never was or should be federal.

Q: What about things like drug policy, or online gambling? You recently introduced a law saying that the federal government should dictate online gambling policy and that seems to be a contradiction. I assume you think it's OK for the states to decide on gambling if it's horse racing or something like that?

A: States should be the entities that decide on issues of gambling that takes place within the state. But where you've got gambling that takes place online, the online world is an interstate and an international network of wires. It really becomes an interstate exercise the minute you take it online. If you think about it, this is actually a necessary step to take to respect each state's right to decide whether or to what extent to allow gambling and that's necessary in order to preserve each state's right to decide. Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.

Q: Would that be such a horrible outcome though? Shouldn't the individual choose? Shouldn't it be up to an individual to just say, "I want to bet on a sports game," or "I want to bet on the Preakness even though I live 3,000 miles away from the horse track?"

A: Again, I'm approaching this from the standpoint of federalism. I don't think it's the federal government's job to say that every state must recognize gambling, nor is it the government's job to say that states may authorize Internet gambling. This is an appropriate step toward making sure each state may decide on its own what kind of health, safety, and morals legislation it wants to come up with. The best way for the federal government to respect the sovereignty of the states is to place legislation like this so that one state's law can't be easily circumvented.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/0...-should-decide

[Brian4Liberty]

They should list Adelson as a "co-sponsor".

[Brian4Liberty]

Actual text of the bill. At least it's short and simple.

S.3376 - A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers. 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

Text: S.3376 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (09/21/2016)

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3376

To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial
instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined
by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal
Government lawyers.


__________________________________________________ _____________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 21, 2016

Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Graham) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

__________________________________________________ _____________________

A BILL

To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial
instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined
by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal
Government lawyers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET
GAMBLING.

The Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General of the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, dated September 20,
2011, shall have no force or effect for the purposes of interpreting
section 5362(10) of title 31, United States Code.

[ProIndividual]

His (Lee's) point of view is a garbage rationalization for crony capitalism, violation of individual liberty, and anti-free market legislation. Sickening.

[Jesse James]

anybody who is shocked about this should pay attention more. Mike Lee has been a supporter of this for years. nothing new.

[specsaregood]

You aren't against crony capitalism, aren't a free market advocate, and aren't for individual liberty? What a question...

We must be reading a different bill, as what I see simply says that unelected bureaucrats can't change or determine the laws.

[ProIndividual]

Some people are fine with tyranny as long its local or their Constitution-fetish is satisfied. Principles over parchments, people. Liberty, justice, free markets first, not structure of constitutions.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'm not sure about this bill, but I have seen a troubling pattern from Lee for years. I think he may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a very convincing one. I remember he co-sponsored an NDAA resolution with Feinstein that was TERRIBLE beyond belief. That has always made me leery of him. He also is closer to Ted Cruz than Rand Paul, which is another bad sign.

[osan]

Mike Lee is still very conservative/libertarian.

I dunno about that. His words strike me as those of just another statist hack. But let us take a play by play... perhaps I am wrong:

Here is his POV on the issue.

Sen. Mike Lee on conservatives, libertarians, and why the feds should let states make their own rules.

More of that 10th Amendment nonsense. The 10A is an affront to all liberty. If we are to admit any validity of the Constitution, at the very least we may say without uncertainty that the Framers should have stopped at the 9A. I suppose they wanted a nice round number and therefore pulled the hideous 10A from their codpieces.

A: I would certainly say that civil liberties have suffered under this administration. I think we've seen more government surveillance in this administration, and I think it's troubling to a lot of Americans. I voted against the reauthorization of the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act [in 2008], and I did so at a time when there were very few Republicans willing to do that.

He calls it "troubling"? It's like being "troubled" watching your house burn down, knowing your children are still inside.

And in typical style of a filthy politician, he could not help but plug his "record" on voting down FISA. He's off to a flying start.

A: Generally I call myself a conservative, sometimes a constitutional conservative. My focus is on the fact that when we maintain a consistent effort to restrain the government's power¹ and influence to those powers identified in the Constitution, that's where we strike the right balance between what kind of government we need and what kind of government we don't want².

Sweet Jesus...

1: He apparently fails to see the problem deeply coupled with having to maintain a constant fight against government encroachment and the resulting tyranny. Granted it is subtext, but the very structure of that fragment of sentence basically screams at us the message that governMENT is deadly poison to life itself.

2: There is so much that is so deeply and woefully wrong here that I could literally write a book on it and barely know where to begin. But to merely skate the surface - he accepts the presumption that we "need" government. The definition of that need is tacit and obviously unquestioned and most likely in his mind unquestionable. Again, the very structure of the grammar he employs strongly suggests force and shows the distasteful equivalence of that which he claims we "need" v. that which "we don't want", the two being the demon spawn of the incestuous relations between tyranny and corruption. There is so much implied in this fragment that is so telling of the mindset of the man who spoke them. In neither good conscience nor concern for my self-respect and credibility could I deem such a man one dedicated in any serious manner to liberty.

A: It's not that it should be remanded to the states. It's that that's a state power. It always was state power. It never was or should be federal.

A money shot right there, folks. He goes on about something that has no material reality of its own. His words would be semantically no different were he to have said, "It's that that's a unicorn power. It always was unicorn power." They are literally equal in that here "state" and "unicorn" are equally non-existent. They are but vapors of thought. I will not ascribe his apparent beliefs, as made manifest in the quotation, as the product of evil, but of sore and dangerous blind-ignorance. Based on this, it is clear to me that he is just another poor fool who has consumed way too much of the Constitutional Kool-Aid.

The physical reality of what he suggests translates thusly:

"It's not that it should be remanded to the regional mob bosses. It's that that's a regional-mob power. It always was regional-mob power. It never was or should be central-mob.

A: States should be the entities that decide on issues of gambling that takes place within the state. But where you've got gambling that takes place online, the online world is an interstate and an international network of wires. It really becomes an interstate exercise the minute you take it online. If you think about it, this is actually a necessary step to take to respect each state's right to decide whether or to what extent to allow gambling and that's necessary in order to preserve each state's right to decide. Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.

Blah blah... each STATE... blah blah... Not word one about the rights and desires of the individual. FAIL^FAIL

A: Again, I'm approaching this from the standpoint of federalism. I don't think it's the federal government's job to say that every state must recognize gambling, nor is it the government's job to say that states may authorize Internet gambling. This is an appropriate step toward making sure each state may decide on its own what kind of health, safety, and morals legislation it wants to come up with. The best way for the federal government to respect the sovereignty of the states is to place legislation like this so that one state's law can't be easily circumvented.

OK, so I then return to my oft-repeated example: if states' rights are so all-fired sacred, then when MS decides it's time to return to "separate but equal", nobody really has much to say about it. If "states" have the right ("states rights" - the term makes my skin crawl just to type it out for the sheer creep-factor) to self-determine and if we are a "democracy", as so many claim, then there is no problem with sweeping up all the KneeGrows and keeping them bottled up in "communities" or even shipping them to Liberia.

Perhaps I am operating from a different play book, but Mike Lee is no devotee of freedom. He may think he is, but that would only indicate to me his deep and desperate need for a very serious augmentation of his education on such affairs.

[Jesse James]

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

[Krugminator2]

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian on the judiciary. A lot of the stuff Ron Paul would be okay with violates the 14th Amendment.

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/new...ions/76991040/

[John F Kennedy III]

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian on the judiciary. A lot of the stuff Ron Paul would be okay with violates the 14th Amendment.

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/new...ions/76991040/

Yep. $#@! Lee.

[Jesse James]

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian on the judiciary. A lot of the stuff Ron Paul would be okay with violates the 14th Amendment.

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/new...ions/76991040/

to be clear, obviously what Lee is doing is $#@!ty.

but he has supported this very bill for years. seriously. this bill isn't new. he has been like this for years. there's no reason to hold him on a pedestal. he's not a libertarian. he is a Ted Cruz type candidate (maybe less war hawkish)

honestly, he is a lot like Gary Johnson.

[Krugminator2]

Yep. $#@! Lee.

I wouldn't go that far. I still think he is a great Senator.

[John F Kennedy III]

to be clear, obviously what Lee is doing is $#@!ty.

but he has supported this very bill for years. seriously. this bill isn't new. he has been like this for years. there's no reason to hold him on a pedestal. he's not a libertarian. he is a Ted Cruz type candidate (maybe less war hawkish)

honestly, he is a lot like Gary Johnson.

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

[Jesse James]

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

Amash, Rand, Massie. I think it's safe to say he is still in the top 10. I can't think of 6 others who would be ahead of him.

But not sure he is quite a "liberty candidate".

[specsaregood]

It's because fairly or not he used to be considered a Liberty candidate. This thread simply demonstrates that he isn't. As someone who was out of the loop for a few years, I appreciate this thread.

Mike Lee was one of the like 10 "Politicians We Can Trust" in that infamous thread I made in 2012.

I'll have to ask again, what is your problem with this bill?

[Jesse James]

This bill is not consistent with the 10th Amendment. It effectively bans online gambling for everyone. There is no evidence that anyone from Utah plays on Nevada's sites. Nevada has a pretty elaborate geolocation system to make sure you can't just a use a VPN. And even if someone from Utah could play in Nevada, it still would not be okay to create a federal law banning poker in other states.

The only reason Lee supports this is because he took 50k in illegal contributions from a guy who is now in prison for using his bank for most of the poker transactions in this country and Lee wants to make clear he is clean. http://www.thespectrum.com/story/new...ions/76991040/

This is the problem with the bill.

[specsaregood]

This is the problem with the bill.

This bill does not ban online gambling, it only reaffirms it and says that unelected bureacrats can't change/make up laws on their own.

If this bill "bans online gambling for everyone", since it hasn't passed yet, that would mean that online gambling is currently legal.

[presence]

Reaffirmation of prohibition on funding of unlawful internet gambling

law is an intelligible principle of right,
necessarily resulting from the nature of man;
and not an arbitrary rule,
that can be established by mere will, numbers or power[]
law recognizes the validity of all contracts which men have a natural right to make,
and which justice requires to be fulfilled: such, for example,
as contracts that render equivalent for equivalent,
and are at the same time consistent with morality,
the natural rights of men, and those rights of property, privilege,
which men have a natural right to acquire by labor and contract.

Lysander Spooner 1845


economic regulation is slavery by another name

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/spooneruos.htm#p5

[Krugminator2]

This bill does not ban online gambling, it only reaffirms it and says that unelected bureacrats can't change/make up laws on their own.

Online poker is not illegal in this country. It is neither illegal to offer online poker nor to play online poker. There is no law that says otherwise. It is a legal gray area about whether a bank can knowingly process online gambling transactions. Even then, John Ashcroft's law firm wrote a legal opinion stating that it is okay for banks to process online gambling transaction.

Sheldon Adelson believes online gambling would cannibalize Vegas casinos. He believes the easier it is for people to gamble from their home, the fewer people will go to brick and mortar casinos. That is what this is about. Adelson was in the online poker business at one time. The only reason online poker was passed in Nevada is because the make up of online poker players is different from other casino gamblers so some casinos thought having just poker would be an addition not a subtraction.

This is cronyism at its worst. I get that Mike Lee doesn't want to go to prison. I don't hate Mike Lee for this. But there is no Constitutional and certainly no libertarian argument for his position. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3855100-1...and-jury-probe

[Ender]

I dunno about that. His words strike me as those of just another statist hack. But let us take a play by play... perhaps I am wrong:

Here is his POV on the issue.



More of that 10th Amendment nonsense. The 10A is an affront to all liberty. If we are to admit any validity of the Constitution, at the very least we may say without uncertainty that the Framers should have stopped at the 9A. I suppose they wanted a nice round number and therefore pulled the hideous 10A from their codpieces.




He calls it "troubling"? It's like being "troubled" watching your house burn down, knowing your children are still inside.

And in typical style of a filthy politician, he could not help but plug his "record" on voting down FISA. He's off to a flying start.



Sweet Jesus...

1: He apparently fails to see the problem deeply coupled with having to maintain a constant fight against government encroachment and the resulting tyranny. Granted it is subtext, but the very structure of that fragment of sentence basically screams at us the message that governMENT is deadly poison to life itself.

2: There is so much that is so deeply and woefully wrong here that I could literally write a book on it and barely know where to begin. But to merely skate the surface - he accepts the presumption that we "need" government. The definition of that need is tacit and obviously unquestioned and most likely in his mind unquestionable. Again, the very structure of the grammar he employs strongly suggests force and shows the distasteful equivalence of that which he claims we "need" v. that which "we don't want", the two being the demon spawn of the incestuous relations between tyranny and corruption. There is so much implied in this fragment that is so telling of the mindset of the man who spoke them. In neither good conscience nor concern for my self-respect and credibility could I deem such a man one dedicated in any serious manner to liberty.




A money shot right there, folks. He goes on about something that has no material reality of its own. His words would be semantically no different were he to have said, "It's that that's a unicorn power. It always was unicorn power." They are literally equal in that here "state" and "unicorn" are equally non-existent. They are but vapors of thought. I will not ascribe his apparent beliefs, as made manifest in the quotation, as the product of evil, but of sore and dangerous blind-ignorance. Based on this, it is clear to me that he is just another poor fool who has consumed way too much of the Constitutional Kool-Aid.

The physical reality of what he suggests translates thusly:





Blah blah... each STATE... blah blah... Not word one about the rights and desires of the individual. FAIL^FAIL



OK, so I then return to my oft-repeated example: if states' rights are so all-fired sacred, then when MS decides it's time to return to "separate but equal", nobody really has much to say about it. If "states" have the right ("states rights" - the term makes my skin crawl just to type it out for the sheer creep-factor) to self-determine and if we are a "democracy", as so many claim, then there is no problem with sweeping up all the KneeGrows and keeping them bottled up in "communities" or even shipping them to Liberia.

Perhaps I am operating from a different play book, but Mike Lee is no devotee of freedom. He may think he is, but that would only indicate to me his deep and desperate need for a very serious augmentation of his education on such affairs.

You DO know that the "Civil" War was to take away State's Rights and bring everything under the banner of the central government? The constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to bring power to the central government and weaken the states. Lincoln's war finished that.

States Rights is a KEY issue in individual rights. This may not be perfect, but walking toward State's Rights is moving toward freedom.

And right on @Jesse James.

Mike Lee has never claimed to be a libertarian, so what's the problem? Did you also hate Ron Paul when he thought it was ok for states to have their own gun control?

[specsaregood]

Online poker is not illegal in this country. It is neither illegal to offer online poker nor to play online poker. There is no law that says otherwise. It is a legal gray area about whether a bank can knowingly process online gambling transactions. Even then, John Ashcroft's law firm wrote a legal opinion stating that it is okay for banks to process online gambling transaction.

Sheldon Adelson believes online gambling would cannibalize Vegas casinos. He believes the easier it is for people to gamble from their home, the fewer people will go to brick and mortar casinos. That is what this is about. Adelson was in the online poker business at one time. The only reason online poker was passed in Nevada is because the make up of online poker players is different from other casino gamblers so some casinos thought having just poker would be an addition not a subtraction.

This is cronyism at its worst. I get that Mike Lee doesn't want to go to prison. I don't hate Mike Lee for this. But there is no Constitutional and certainly no libertarian argument for his position. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3855100-1...and-jury-probe

Well this bill doesn't make it illegal either then.

[Ender]

I wouldn't go that far. I still think he is a great Senator.

As do I-

[Ender]

Mike Lee usually comes in the top 3 in congressional conservative issues.

Beats Rand many times; he also has co-sponsored many things with Rand and backed him on innumerable issues.

https://www.conservativereview.com/m.../liberty-card/

Here's a terrific Mike Lee rant about liberty to Congress:

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...en-liberty-bro

[Brian4Liberty]

We must be reading a different bill, as what I see simply says that unelected bureaucrats can't change or determine the laws.

At face value, I agree. And thankfully it is a simple bill, with not much hidden. But it is aimed very specifically. What about the myriad of other laws undermined by bureaucrats? Why just this one?

And anything proposed by hardcore neoconservatives like Cotton and Graham should be highly suspicious. In this case, it seems to be nothing more than a crony favor to one of their biggest individual benefactors.

Mike Lee usually comes in the top 3 in congressional conservative issues.

Beats Rand many times; he also has co-sponsored many things with Rand and backed him on innumerable issues.

https://www.conservativereview.com/m.../liberty-card/

Here's a terrific Mike Lee rant about liberty to Congress:

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...en-liberty-bro

Agree. Mike Lee is certainly one of the best on many issues. Raging at our allies and ignoring our enemies is not a winning strategy, so this is essentially a tempest in a teapot.

Of much more concern is the alliance that this may represent. Romney allied himself heavily with neoconservatives. Chaffetz did the same thing. Have Mormon political leaders decided that more and more they will align with neoconservatives? That would be unfortunate. If libertarians continue to flame Lee, while the neocons are giving him flowers and money, it won't help bring him closer to the libertarian side.