In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans. ~Charles Murray

I understand the principled objections to gambling, online or otherwise.  It can be a scourge of the poor, and evangelicals have been right to point to these dangers.  Personally, I thought the introduction of casinos to New Mexico was appalling, almost more because of the crassness of it than because of anything else, and it is not necessarily clear to me that the boost in revenues for the tribes has not probably also had many negative social consequences for them and the rest of the state.  However, in this case, Murray makes an outstanding argument why a law that is both obnoxious and unenforceable will encourage contempt for the law.

While gambling can be self-destructive, it often isn’t and doesn’t have to be.  Furthermore, it is particularly rich (no pun intended) that the party of Bill Bennett would have the gall to ban any form of gambling, much less the online variety which is probably the least potentially iniquitous of any kind there is.  More importantly, it is baffling to me how these people have managed to make banning online gambling a higher priority than coming up with a meaningful border enforcement law (and I don’t consider the half-measure of the Secure Fence Act to count towards this).  In one blow, they have interfered with freedom of millions of people to…do what exactly?  Stave off moral degeneration?  That sounds like it might be worthwhile.  By the way, how did the President’s visit with Don Sherwood go?