Sheldon Adelson, a major GOP donor, Las Vegas Sands CEO, and currently ranked 15th richest person in the world by Forbes in October 2018, is suspected of having influenced the re-interpretation of the Wire Act.
Comments and criticism abound as the online gambling community is pressed by suspense after the court hearing between the DOJ’s Office of Legal Council and the New Hampshire Lottery Commission.
- Sheldon Adelson is suspected of involvement in the Wire Act opinion.
- Indications show a relation between Adelson’s RAWA and the new opinion.
- Legal officials demanding for answers, while Adelson’s teams deny all allegations.
What’s In It for Sheldon Adelson?
The pro-gambling public is well aware of the stakes for Sheldon Adelson regarding the matter of legal online gambling across the country. Over the years, he has amassed significant capital from his land-based casinos in Las Vegas – both the Sands Hotel Resort and the Venetian.
Adelson is otherwise known as an investment magnate, successful entrepreneur, and lastly philanthropist, a title that he mostly deserved thanks to his wife, Miriam Adelson, who was recently awarded the highest Presidential honor – the Medal of Freedom.
Public reactions arose in response to this act by Trump; even more so due to the fact that the Adelson family is already known as a firm supporter and financer of Trump’s Republican Party.
For his presidential race and inaugural ceremony alone, Sheldon provided about a quarter of a billion dollars, whilst denying the benefits of his actions.
As it seems to everyone, the Office of Legal Council’s newly stated opinion on the matter at hand seems to have handled much of the debt. Many recognize it as the successful outcome that would have come out of Adelson’s Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) legislation, with specific individuals claiming to note significant matches between the two.
Charles Cooper, one of the attorneys working on the Adelson team fighting online gambling in support of RAWA, has come forward on the issue. Cooper claims that the OLC’s opinion “accords entirely with the analysis my firm undertook and I shared with the DOJ.”
Arguments and specific wordings were also found to be matching the RAWA debate, further casting a shadow on the Adelson theory of conspiracy.
Numerous legal and physical entities have taken an opposing stance and are openly trying to discredit the DOJ’s Office of Legal Council decision, as well as Adelson’s name. Two attorneys general, Josh Shapiro, and Gurbir. S. Grewal, from states that have legalized online gambling, Pennsylvania and New Jersey respectively, addressed their concerns directly to the US Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker.
“We can see no good reason for the Justice Department’s sudden reversal.”
Prominent names of the gambling world, including poker pros Daniel Negreanu and Chris Moneymaker additionally addressed the matter and gained massive support through social media.
If you wonder why we can’t play online poker in the USA. This guy is one of the main culprits. All to protect his interests. https://t.co/Z7mUWFKqGp
— Chris Moneymaker (@CMONEYMAKER) February 8, 2019
What Does the Wire Act Opinion Come Down To?
With so much attention directed at this issue, it is normal to ask oneself what all the fuzz is about. The 1961 Wire Act was originally enforced to prevent criminal actions and sports betting practices by punishment through fines or imprisonment. Up until 2011, it applied to all forms of gambling and prevented them from engaging in interstate activities.
With the Obama-administration opinion, the restriction focused on sports betting and consequently allowed the practice of a shared poker player pool presently established between Nevada, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.
Adelson, rationalizing his actions as concern for the “economically vulnerable” youth, has long opposed the entire practice of online gambling. Many assume that the lack of success with RAWA has prompted him to shift strategies, resulting in the new opinion. Allegations continue to arise, with everyone expecting the situation to unravel at the next court hearing.