Trump vs. Clinton: Who’s Better for Opponents of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act?

Posted on March 2nd, 2016 by Daniel Ryder
Trump vs. Clinton RAWA online poker

Unless the unthinkable happens again, the 2016 presidential race is shaping up to be Trump vs. Clinton, and that might be a good thing for online poker players. (Image: gma.yahoo.com)

A Trump vs. Clinton 2016 general election has many Americans concerned for the well-being of the country, but as it relates to online poker and making sure the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) doesn’t advance, the political battle could be the country’s best bet.

For those late to the game, RAWA would restore the Wire Act to its 2011 interpretation before the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a controversial opinion. Five years ago, the DOJ opined that the Wire Act passed in 1961 banning the transmission of bets and wagers applied only to sports betting and not gambling in general.

That opened the way for states like Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware to adhere to the wishes of their constituents and legalize online casinos and poker on the Internet.

Since then, certain lawmakers in Congress have tried to persuade their constituents into backing RAWA. Fortunately for those looking to play iPoker in the three aforementioned states, RAWA has struggled to find footing in either the Senate or House of Representatives.

Following Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday bashing where they each took seven of 11 states, it appears the two are best positioned to win their respective party nominations.

Clinton has long been assumed to become the Democratic Party nominee, and with the GOP race still congested with Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Florida) battling Ohio Governor John Kasich, Trump’s odds continue to flourish. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson will skip Thursday night’s debate and is expected to officially suspend his campaign Friday.

Though some believe Trump vs. Clinton will be about as competitive as McKeehen vs. the November Nine, when it comes to The Donald, nothing should be taken for granted.

Worst Case: Rubio

It’s tough to definitively identify which 2016 candidate would be best for online poker, but it’s certainly not difficult to determine who would be the worst. The 2015-2016 Senate version of RAWA is co-sponsored by Rubio in a move that was seen by some as catering to Las Vegas Sands billionaire Sheldon Adelson.

Online gambling’s most outspoken critic, Adelson donated $100 million during the previous presidential election cycle, with every penny going to conservative politicians. Aside from Trump who is largely self-funding, many believed obtaining Adelson’s backing was crucial to securing the Republican ticket.

Surprisingly, Adelson and his wife Miriam have largely sat out the 2016 race thus far, but there’s no reason to believe Rubio would do a 180 and decide to support online gaming should be become president.

Best Case: Trump, Clinton

Republicans have traditionally opposed gambling expansion which is why Trump being declared one of the best options for iPoker might come as a shock. Of course, Trump is no ordinary Republican.

The businessman made a considerable chunk of his fortune off gambling, and the Trump Taj Mahal is still open for business in Atlantic City. Although he sold the property years ago to pal Carl Icahn, he’d still be the first US president to hold the office while concurrently having his name plastered on a casino.

With his rich history in gambling, it seems unthinkable that Trump would take steps to reverse online poker, especially considering that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has come to his aid.

Trump is the epitome of a wild card, but when it comes to gambling, the same is true for Clinton.

Though she voted in favor of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 while serving in the Senate, Clinton supported a study in 2008 to determine how iGaming might be properly regulated.

Comments are closed.