Several years ago, a work colleague instructed me to use the phrase ‘gaming’, and not internet gambling when discussing our organization’s work on federal gambling policy.  She believed that term better reflected the breadth of the issue and, to a certain extent, minimized the negative connotations associated with “gambling.”  Twelve years later, I’m not sure that works anymore.

First of all, if I began this column discussing “gaming” issues, you might think I’m referring to introverted teenagers hiding from the sun in front of their Xbox consoles. Second, it doesn’t really matter whether “gambling” has a negative or positive connotation. It has, does now, and forever will be as long as humans breathe. But so what?

Vices aren’t crimes. And even if they were, their regulation should be a state and local prerogative. So why are federal lawmakers getting involved in this? It’s unfortunate, but sadly unsurprising, that this effort is being led by Republicans. And it reinforces the stereotype that while Democrats often lack an intellectual foundation for their policy proposals, Republicans are just plain hypocritical. Sound harsh? Well, read on about the internet gambling fight and you’ll see what I mean.

The Restoration of America’s Wire Act (H.R. 4301, S. 2159), sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), would modify the 1961 the Wire Act to impose a de factor federal online gambling ban. Rather than “restore” the original interpretation of the Wire Act, as its sponsors claim, the bill would actually amend it by removing language banning sports betting only.

Sen. Graham and Rep. Chaffetz are on record as supporting “states’ rights” when it comes to Obamacare, Common Core school standards, gun laws, gay marriage and other issues. Yet, gambling is somehow different? This internet gambling story originally appeared on the Human Events website.