Latest news with #CharlesEvansHughes
New York Post
25-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Online gambling is engineered addiction — here's how to rein it in
'They fatten upon wretchedness, and have the effrontery to demand that the laws of the State shall be adapted to their purposes.' So said Charles Evans Hughes, Republican governor of New York, about Empire State gambling operators in 1908. More than a century later, Hughes' words ring true as the United States faces an explosion of legal online gambling. 4 Sports betting is now legal in 39 states, and online casinos are permitted in seven. Pixel-Shot – Sports betting, decriminalized by the Supreme Court in 2018, has spread to 39 states. Online casinos, which include slots, blackjack, and more, are permitted in seven of those. Americans now gamble roughly $1 billion a day on state-sanctioned apps like DraftKings and FanDuel — far more if one includes the lottery and meme-stock or crypto speculation. Many have championed this newfound embrace of financial thrill-seeking. Bill Miller of the American Gaming Association claims gambling is innocuous, 'a voluntary entertainment option, comparable to attending a concert, dining out, or going to the movies.' But gambling is not like attending a concert or going to the movies. It is, like drugs or alcohol, an addictive product that many can enjoy safely — but some cannot. The dangers of addiction multiply when we can bet on our phones at all hours of the day, and when gambling companies use sophisticated algorithms and troves of personal data to extract the maximum amount of money from customers. 4 As many as one in five male college students are using student-loan money to fund gambling, recent surveys have found. AA+W – That's because the gambling industry, like the alcohol industry, is reliant on problem users. For at least one major US operator, VIP customers represented just 0.5% of the user base while generating more than 70% of the company's revenue. In the UK, where online gambling has been legal for longer and better data exist, 5% of users account for 86% of industry profits, and gamblers from the poorest areas are overrepresented among the biggest losers. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Problems are concentrated among young men: As many as one in five male college students are using student-loan money to fund gambling, recent surveys have found. Proponents of expanded online gambling greatly exaggerate the benefits. Tax revenue is meager and quickly diminishes over time. 4 Americans now gamble roughly $1 billion a day on state-sanctioned apps like DraftKings and FanDuel. Getty Images for FanDuel The black market, which advocates said would dry up as users move to legal sites, is thriving because more people than ever are gambling — and their play spills over into unregulated spaces. In response, some commentators have suggested a blanket ban on online gambling. The logic is simple: Gambling, particularly on our phones, is bad for lots of people and for society writ large. But prohibition is not a cure-all. While a ban would surely reduce the number of bettors and de-normalize the activity, many would simply continue their play with unregulated operators — especially now that the population of gamblers has expanded from years of legalization. Instead, like other vices, online gambling should be regulated by focusing on the two aspects that justify government intervention: addiction and predation. Some gambling products, just like some drugs, are beyond the pale and ought to be banned completely. Online slots, for example, are engineered to ensnare users, and carry far greater risks of addiction than online sports betting. In Pennsylvania, the largest state with legal online casinos, residents lost $27 million betting on sports in March, while losing $238 million to online casinos — 75% of which came from slots. For sports betting, which carries less risk of addiction, regulators should set clear rules about identifying and responding to problem gamblers, and impose hefty fines on operators for noncompliance. Any gambler who deposits money a dozen times in a single day, drastically increases their stakes after losing, or frequently cancels withdrawals should be automatically flagged and their betting restricted. 4 Getty Images Regulations can be modeled after dram-shop laws, which hold alcohol vendors accountable for over-serving obviously intoxicated patrons. Regulators should also restrict the amount and nature of gambling advertisements. You should be able to watch sporting events without gambling being shoved in your face. Moreover, like health warnings on cigarette cartons, ads should come with a disclosure that the odds are not in your favor. Gambling is now regulated at the state level, but just as Congress stepped in to regulate tobacco and alcohol, it should now do the same for online gambling. In many ways, the fight to regulate today's online gambling operators echoes Hughes' fight against racetracks in the early 1900s. But unlike a century ago, gambling has become frictionless and ubiquitous. Gamblers can gamble day and night, on the couch and in the shower, on NBA-themed slots and Russian table tennis. Their bookies, meanwhile, know everything about them and can provide personalized inducements to keep them gambling. The question facing policymakers isn't whether gambling should exist, but how to prevent addiction and predation while permitting recreational use. Banning online casinos and more effectively regulating sports betting would strike the balance between personal liberty and necessary protection. After all, Americans should be free to gamble — but not with loaded dice. Isaac Rose-Berman is a professional sports bettor and fellow at the American Institute for Boys and Men focused on gambling research and policy. Adapted from City Journal.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Connecticut's Broken Promise: When Equal Justice Favors Special Interests
'Equal justice under law.' These four words are inscribed on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court — a reminder that impartiality is a promise woven into the fabric of our constitutional system. When the building was under construction in 1935, a journalist questioned whether the word 'equal' was necessary. But Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes insisted. In his words, 'plac[ing] a strong emphasis on impartiality' was essential. He was right. As citizens, taxpayers, and participants in our democratic republic, we are entitled to expect impartiality from those who govern us. That's the promise of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause — and in an era where government often seems to exceed its proper bounds, that expectation has never been more essential. Yet here in Connecticut, too often, that promise is being broken. Our elected officials are placing a thumb on the scale in deference to favored special interests. In the legislature, they're promoting a bill that would fund striking workers with taxpayer dollars. And nowhere has their one-sidedness been more evident than in recent labor disputes unfolding across our state. Politicians who style themselves as champions of working families seem to forget that employers and their families are also their constituents — and all deserve equal consideration. The strike at Pratt & Whitney began on May 5. Since then, a parade of elected officials from both parties have joined the picket line to demonstrate support for the strikers. Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz tweeted that she was 'proud to stand with members of the machinist union.' The Connecticut AFL-CIO amplified her message with enthusiasm. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy; U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, Jahana Hayes, and John Larson; and state officials including Attorney General William Tong, State Senate Majority Leader Matt Lesser, Sen. Julie Kushner (herself a former UAW director) and Rep. Ron Delnicki also joined in. Such one-sided and full-throated pro-union support only increases the likelihood of another work stoppage. Is this really in the best interests of Connecticut's people — and who is representing the broader public interest? Unions and employers can come to terms without government involvement, as shown by the tentative agreement reached at Electric Boat on May 18. When elected officials take sides in a dispute between private parties — particularly while negotiations are ongoing — they forfeit their ability to serve as honest brokers. They also alienate those of us who are not party to the conflict but depend on sound governance and a functioning economy. We are right to wonder: Who is looking out for us? The expectation in a free society should be simple: If a person or company is acting lawfully, government should not target or intimidate them. And yet, in Connecticut, official behavior can be tinged with partisanship and even punitive intent. Take the case of Avelo Airlines. Because the airline cooperated with a federal deportation order issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Attorney General Tong threatened to review Avelo's eligibility for state economic incentives. This wasn't in response to illegal activity. It was a retaliatory threat resulting from partisan disapproval against a lawful contract with the federal government. In recent years, it has become a bipartisan mantra that 'no one is above the law.' That's true. But no one is beneath the law, either. Employers engaged in good-faith labor negotiations deserve protection from political harassment. So do businesses acting within the scope of the law — even if their conduct offends the sensibilities of the political class. When politicians pick winners and losers — not in the free market, but in the moral judgment of the state — they corrode the trust our system depends on. They reinforce the suspicion that government no longer serves all its citizens equally, but only those aligned with its preferred ideologies. Trust in government is not a given. It must be earned — and protected. That starts with leaders who recognize that their job is not to champion favored factions, but to serve all of us, without fear or favor. If justice is to be equal, it must also be impartial. The people of Connecticut deserve nothing less. Carol Platt Liebau is the president of Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based public policy organization.
