While Ron Paul has long dropped out of the Republican Primary with rumors of of him possibly being the front runner for the Vice President spot along with John McCain, his thoughts on online gambling have become very relevant to those who are waiting for the day that the UIGEA is overturned. He delivered his thoughts in a speech before the Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Domestic & International Monetary Policy of the US House of Representatives, April 2, 2008: Hearing on Proposed UIGEA Regulations. Similarly to Barack Obama, Ron Paul does not believe in that it’s the government’s function to be a nanny of all citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I stand opposed to the regulations being discussed today because I opposed the underlying bill upon which these regulations are based. The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet.

The proper role of the federal government is not that of a nanny, protecting citizens from any and every potential negative consequence of their actions. Although I personally believe gambling to be a dumb waste of money, American citizens should be just as free to spend their money playing online poker as they should be able to buy a used car, enter into a mortgage, or invest in a hedge fund. Risk is inherent in any economic activity, and it is not for the government to determine which risky behaviors Americans may or may not engage in.

The Internet is a powerful tool, and any censorship of Internet activity sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans rely on the Internet for activities as varied as watching basketball games, keeping up on international news broadcasts, or buying food and clothing. In the last few years we have seen ominous signs of the federal government’s desire to control the Internet. The ostensible reasons are to protect Americans from sex offenders, terrorists, and the evils of gambling, but once the door is open to government intrusion, there is no telling what legitimate activity, especially political activity, might fall afoul of government authorities.

The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to oppose these new regulations and support Chairman Frank’s HR 2046, of which I am a cosponsor. Although this bill has been criticized by some for its regulatory aspects, this act does not create any new federal laws and merely ensures that Internet gambling firms comply with existing federal law. The passage of HR 2046 would restore the right of Americans to decide for themselves whether or not to gamble online.

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 is making headway through Congress on its way to reversing the current anti-gambling legislation in place, the form of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 which has made is illegal for financial institutions to process online gambling transactions. The financial institutions have spoken out against the UIGEA because

“If the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the law, what hope is there that banks can resolve these confounding legal issues?” the American Bankers Association said in commenting on a conflict between the Treasury and Justice departments on the legality of betting on horses.

The Washington trade group said the suggested rules are more likely to catch its members in a compliance trap than stop profits from illegal gambling from escaping offshore.

HR 2046 aims to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and for other purposes.