Harry Reid's Argumentative Analysis

993 Words4 Pages

Various casinos have now changed course by supporting legalized Internet poker, albeit as long as they can monopolize the industry. The industry initially tried to crush their competition, but the market grew in size despite high profile prosecutions. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), a long time darling of the casino industry, changed his opinion on the issue in line with casino industry. “Rent-A-Senator” Reid had opposed Internet poker in the past but switched course in 2010. For instance, he tried unsuccessfully to add a bill legalizing online poker to an extension of the Bush era tax cuts. With that in mind, Reid’s bill would have created a vast competitive advantage for major Nevada and New Jersey casinos, …show more content…

Shelley Berkley (D-NV) also changed her stance on Internet poker. Berkley had proposed an amendment to Jim Leach’s bill that would have eliminated all the exemptions for Internet gambling. In other words, she tried to implement a complete ban on Internet gambling, thereby providing a strong competitive advantage to Nevada casinos. However, Berkley’s stance had changed drastically by 2012. During a debate, she attacked her opponent, Senator Dean Heller, with the same issue. “My opponent is failing the people of the state of Nevada,” she said. She stated that online poker would add 1,200 jobs in Nevada. “My opponent is not doing his job. Either he does not have an understanding of how important this is to the state of Nevada, or he’s not caring.” That was merely political posturing because Heller has also been a supporter of online poker.
Another prominent Senator flip flopped on Internet poker and he’s probably the last person who you’d expect--Jon Kyl. In 2011, Kyl posted this statement on his website: “Efforts to carve out an exception for games like poker, which many believe is a game of skill, may be considered later this year. Until I have the chance to review them, I cannot make a judgment about their merits; but I will consider them carefully as long as they leave in place the broader proscriptions against online

Open Document