WHY HAVE I SELECTED GAMBLING AS A SIGNATURE ISSUE? Gambling is a libertarian pursuit, not only for the vendor, but also, and more importantly, for the consumer as well. The thing is, the issue of legalized gambling serves as a 'prism" if you will, by which we can take a look at many other issues that are of great interest to those who prefer Personal Choice, and which should be of interest to ALL citizens. For example, * FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- The Justice Department is currently attempting to scare publishers and other media companies into taking their online gambling advertisements out of circulation, despite the fact that it can not establish that any law has been broken. This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. * PRIVACY RIGHTS -- The government has attempted, on more than one occasion, to gain the authority to monitor the bank transactions of individuals, for the purpose of determining whether they involve internet gambling. This is an egregious violation of the right to privacy. * FREEDOM OF CHOICE -- Government feels compelled to dictate what one can do with one's own personal property. No one should be able to dictate to us what we can do with our money, and there is no reason we should not be able to engage in whatever activity we choose, as long as we're not violating anyone else's rights. * STATES' RIGHTS -- For some reason, the federal government feels it has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do within the confines of their own homes. To ban gambling on the internet, for example, reaches into areas over which the federal government should have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Decisions on banning the activity - assuming a ban is in any way justified, which we do not - should be left up to the states, as they are not designated to the federal government in the Constitution. * LEGISLATION OF MORALITY -- More often than not, the opponents of gambling are those who attack it, viciously, from a moral perspective. The moral opportunists exact influence with lawmakers and the media. There is no place where government, whether on a state or national level, plays the intrusive nanny more than it does in making a "moral" decision on gambling. Where do legislators get off painting themselves as "moral leaders" anyway? Virtually every one of them would sell a vote for the right price. * RESPONSIBILITY TO TAXPAYERS -- In those areas where gambling has been legalized, invariably there is a question as to whether the revenue was mis-allocated or funneled into a different area than that for which it was earmarked. Often, gambling takes the rap when this happens, when it is in fact not the fault of gambling interests, but public officials. Taxpayers need to know the truth. * GOVERNMENT WASTE -- Accordingly, if governments were able to curtail their spending, they could look less upon gambling revenues as a "bail-out" for a failed economy, but as a way to create surpluses so that taxes could be cut. Unfortunately, they don't look at it that way, and someone needs to force the issue to change that mindset. * PRIVATIZATION -- This concept, embraced by libertarian-types but not nearly enough by lawmakers, applies primarily to lotteries, which would provide a better service if they were run by private entities, rather than a government that often mismanages it. * GOVERNMENT OVER-REGULATION -- Though we disdain it, we have to ultimately accept that government is going to inject itself into the process on some level, but any responsible informational campaign we conduct should be able to illustrate instances where it can potentially be beneficial (such as guarding against fraud), and the point at which it becomes overly intrusive (which is the norm). * SMALL BUSINESS -- There is unquestionably a small business angle, especially in those areas where slot machines or lotteries are legalized but highly centralized. We would like to encourage wide participation in the process, and creative thinking can make the advent of legalized gambling a win-win proposition for vendors both big and small. * INTERNET REGULATION & TAXATION -- Government efforts are designed to intrude upon the free market atmosphere of the internet, and gambling, along with adult entertainment, are the industries which generate the most e-commerce online. There is very little that is constructive about this. We are in a new technological era - one in which control is unnatural - and the political group that recognizes this is the one that is going to be most responsive to the demands of the future.  * CAMPAIGN FINANCE -- Gambling interests, particularly Indian tribes, have become politicallly forceful with the contributions they makes to candidates and PAC's. However, the industry appears to be one of those singled out by campaign "reformers", who want to restrict freedom of speech in the form of political participation. This became an issue of great contention in the California governor's race, with the eventual winner, Arnold Schwarzenegger, taking millions of dollars from other sources but lodging protests over legal contributions received by his opponents from tribal gaming interests. * CRIME -- Crime figures as a result of legalization of casinos are always overblown by the moral opportunists. Also, inasmuch as gambling is a "non-violent" crime even where it is deemed illegal, should it not be decriminalized, as long as it is not connected to the violation of the rights of others? * THE WAR ON TERROR -- Yes, believe it or not, the government has tried to use the so-called War on Terror as an excuse to crack down on internet gambling, by making the claim that internet casinos may very well be aiding terrorists. In fact, with regard to a vote in the House on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, the following was reported by CNET News.com: "Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, chairman of the Financial Services committee, said restricting offshore gambling was necessary to thwart al-Qaida and other terrorist cells. 'Internet gambling services (are) a haven for money launderers,' Oxley said during the floor debate. 'Offshore Internet gambling sites can be a haven for terrorists to launder money.' Need I say more?