Last month I published an article suggesting that Newt Gingrich was a better option for bettors than Mitt Romney given Gingrich’s connections to gambling interests in Nevada while Romney was clear that he opposes online gambling. The article was in no way intended to endorse anyone although based on some emails I received it appears that some felt the article was trying to lobby for Gingrich. The only Republican candidate that I, or anyone at the OSGA would even consider endorsing, strictly based on his willingness to work for gamblers, is Ron Paul. Paul’s libertarian views and support for bills such as HR2267 almost certainly would ensure that the dark cloak on online gambling in the U.S. would be lifted if he became President.

One comment I made in the article suggested that Rick Santorum was all but finished and should simply drop out. But that comment seemed short sighted. Santorum has emerged as a strong contender out of nowhere after winning 3 straight caucuses and is now the solid 7/2 favorite at most offshore sportsbooks, trailing only Mitt Romney. Gingrich has lost all momentum and now sits as a 30/1 longshot.

So the question that now has to be answered is whether Rick Santorum’s would be a better option for gamblers than Romney. Unlike with Romney or Gingrich it wasn’t necessary to do a lot of digging on Santorum to find his views on gambling or any social issues for that matter. If it’s enjoyable, profitable or goes against the bible in any fashion he opposes it. In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, he not only said that he opposed the expansion of gambling but he called online gambling dangerous to the country. He didn’t go into great details but the fact he was willing to berate gambling to a Las Vegas media outlet right around the Nevada caucus makes it clear that he will be no ally for gamblers. But anyone who has followed Santorum’s career shouldn’t be surprised. He could give even the most radical religious leaders a run for their money in terms of promoting absurdity with his comments comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality not to mention his opposition to birth control. And his most recent ramblings that women should not be allowed in military combat because male soldiers will feel obligated to protect them would make the Taliban proud. But given that the OSGA is concerned with gambling, we’ll focus on his comments that online gambling is dangerous to the country and simply inquire why? It’s a question that we’ve asked many times before. Why is land based gambling ok but Internet gambling "dangerous". The standard answers given by other politicians have centered on compulsive gambling, underage betting and legitimacy of operators but to date we have heard very few instances offshore where compulsive gamblers “lost the house” playing poker or casino games and by all accounts the age verification software and monitoring has been very effective in stopping underage bettors. But land based casinos have seen numerous instances where people on self exclusion lists have gotten back in and lost more money and underage betting seems to be a constant concern at land based casinos, leading one to believe that guards at the doors are either ineffective or the kids are using fake I.D.  And both are issues that are tackled effectively at online establishments.

That said, Santorum seems to think that all gambling is bad (except for probably bingo which the Catholic churches rely on for income).

So who would be a better candidate for gamblers given the choice of Romney or Santorum? Both leaders oppose gambling and neither would likely support any pro gambling legislation but Santorum would probably be a better option for bettors for one simple reason – he’s more likely to lose to Obama. Right now there is a real chance that gambling could be legalized and regulated in the U.S. and the recent DoJ announcement on the Wire Act is paving the way for that to happen. But if Romney and particularly Santorum were to become president it’s almost certain all advancements for online gambling would be revoked. Polls are clear that Romney has a real chance to win the next election but Santorum has little support from moderates and in fact a major television network has called him “unelectable”. Moreover, there are websites that suggest that Santorum has numerous skeletons in his closet that will come out if selected as the nominee while Romney seems to be fairly honest and clean. Certainly Santorum would get few, if any votes from homosexuals and he’s probably lost the vote for many military families.

As it stands the best thing for gamblers is the status quo. It’s just unfortunate that Ron Paul’s campaign has really never taken off. 

Contact Hartley via email at Hartley[at]osga[dot]com.

Read insights from Hartley Henderson every week here at OSGA and checkout Hartley's RUMOR MILL!