← Future of Freedom
Future of Freedom
Charles Fain Lehman & Jacob James Rich: Should Online Sports Gambling Be Legal?
00:35:11
On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about the legalization of internet sports gambling. First on the show is Charles Fain Lehman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. Later, we hear from Jacob James Rich, policy analyst at Reason Foundation. You can find Charles on X, formerly Twitter, at @CharlesFLehman and Jacob at @JacobJamesRich.
Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
Charles Fain Lehman
Foreign.
- [00:09]
Scott Bertram
Welcome to Future of Freedom. I'm your host Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of America's Talking Network. You can check out all of our great podcasts@americastalking.com to support great podcasts like this one, please donate by clicking the link in the show description. We bring you interviews today from different sides of the debate over the legalization of Internet sports gambling. In a little bit we'll be joined by Jacob James Rich, Policy Analyst at Reason Foundation. First we talk with Charles Fain, Layman Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior Editor at City Journal on X. Charlesflamman Charles, thanks so much for joining us.
- [00:53]
Charles Fain Lehman
Absolutely.
- [00:54]
Scott Bertram
Happy to be back talking today about the legalization of sports gambling. And I want to begin, Charles, by asking you about what we know thus far. 2018 or so is when this began after a Supreme Court decision in limited states across the country. What problems have you seen so far?
- [01:14]
Charles Fain Lehman
Yeah, the useful thing about the way in which sports gambling has rolled out is that part of what happened in 2018 is that there was a law passed in the early 90s called the professional Amateur Sports Protection act that essentially prohibited sports gambling nationwide with a couple of carve outs. What the Supreme Court said in 2018 was that's unconstitutional, it violates the 10th amendment, it's commandeering. So HASPO was overturned and as a result there is actually silly federal ban on sports gambling that affects interstate commerce and sports gambling under the Wire Act. But you can't use interstate communication, but you can have state level sports gambling regimes. And so many different states were able to legalize sports gambling and they did so in a staggered fashion, which is to say states went one after another. They didn't all do it once. That's useful from a social scientific perspective because one can look at data on states before and after they legalized, comparing to other states that have not yet legalized, and learn about as close to an assumption of causality as one can get in this kind of social science can learn about the causes, what the effects of the causal effects of sports gambling are on a variety of outcomes. We have a number of studies on this front and those corroborate what one would reasonably expect based on reasoning out sports gambling. We know that sports gambling is generally associated with declines in Swiss families are associated with much worse outcomes financially across a variety of measures. So for example, one study finds that for every dollar that people spend on sports gambling, they forego an additional $2 of investment income. There are large increases in rates of credit card default, in rates of delinquency, rates of bankruptcy increase 25 to 30%, although that's from a low baseline. All of those harms are disproportionately concentrated in households or where young, financially insecure men tend to concentrate as a sign that that's the population the biggest problems, and those are the people who were sort of already on the edge financially to begin with. There's also some evidence that it contributes to not just individual harm, but social harm, where the most persuasive evidence is that there's a famous research finding that when the home team has an upset loss on Sunday in the NFL, it leads to increase in domestic violence. And there's a follow on paper that finds that the legalization of sports gambling exacerbates that effect, so that there's even more domestic violence in states where sports gambling is legal and the home team loses. That all just sort of confirms stuff that we knew from the Australian experience, stuff that we knew from the British experience, which is that gambling is addictive. It is a harmful reinforcing habit. Many people can do it responsibly, some people can't. Those people will keep spending and spending and spending until they run out of money or ruin their lives in some other way, whether that be loss of job, loss of income, loss of their home, domestic abuse, or even in some cases, suicide. So there are a whole host of harms that are well documented and they are showing up in the United States in exactly the same way.
- [04:40]
Scott Bertram
I wanted to ask about those who are harmed according to these studies. Is it at all possible that those people who are most likely to be harmed by legalized sports gambling are the ones who rushed in to take part? And perhaps if we gave it more time. This is a limited amount of time we've had here in the US So far. If we give it more time, that the effects would even out, because those who would be most likely to be negatively affected would be in first.
- [05:12]
Charles Fain Lehman
In one sense, yes, but in another sense, there's always going to be a new naive population, which is to say people age into the pool of at risk for sports gambling problems every year, just as they age out of it. And so, you know, if you introduce a new drug to the population, there will be a burst of interest, but then you will keep getting new people exposed to the drug. Only something like a third of Americans, 30 to 40, 35 to 40% of Americans, placed a bet last year. So there's lots of potential participants even in the current population who are plausibly at risk. Sports Gambling is still not legal in 10 states. There's, you know, there's still room that said, yes, you know, there is a wave dynamic, but the value of studies like the ones that are cited is that they go beyond what's happening at the population level and say what's happening at the individual level. You can say from that, you know, within any given randomly drawn population, some subset of people will be at risk. That at risk population is going to keep being replenished. And so we do have to worry about them going forward in much same way that we have to worry about an at risk population for any vicious good.
- [06:21]
Scott Bertram
Prior to the legalization of sports gambling, people could wager with friends and theoretically with bookies as well. What is the problem? Or is it a problem now that they can do it with a, with a company as opposed to with friends?
- [06:37]
Charles Fain Lehman
I mean, in many senses that's the whole of the problem. PASPA is sort of an ideal prohibition. The law from the 90s that the Supreme Court overturned is sort of an ideal prohibition because it didn't criminalize sports gambling. Right. You and I could have placed a bet on the game and been fine. Under federal law, what it did was said states and companies can't set up a system whereby they profit from this. And that's really useful because it's relatively easy to regulate large companies. It's really easy to regulate states because they have to interact with the federal government. And so they are strongly incentivized to follow the rules. So the difference between the pre passport regime where you could absolutely go out and bet with a bookie or with your friends, or even buy with some offshore betting sites, is that the companies that are now responsible for running the market are much larger, much smarter and much more efficient. They are able to identify you as a player across brands. They can learn information about you by buying your data. They can figure out who is likely to be the whale, who's likely to be the person who pays the most in, and then they can algorithmically target those people. One favorite example is if they see that you're checking your gambling app frequently late at night, they can proactively give you a pop up on your phone, a notification to say, hey, now is a good time to place a bet to get you to bet more. That's something that you're only going to have the competency to do if you're a big legal company that's able to hire smart people. You can't do that in the illicit marketplace. And so what happens is that insofar as these are rational, profit motivated firms, and insofar as most of the profit comes from extracting wealth from the small fraction of users who do most of the gambling, most of them problematic ways, the introduction of that dynamic will yield far more harm than existed under the status quo. Anti where it was just like, you can go to the bookie or you can bet with your friends, okay, so.
- [08:35]
Scott Bertram
Where is that line or how should we consider that point between it should be legal because the vast majority of people are okay and they don't get into the problems, and that line where it should be illegal because some simply cannot and there are harmful effects on the public because of it.
- [08:58]
Charles Fain Lehman
There are a couple of different ways I would answer this question. One is to say that is a democratic question, right? Like alcohol falls into this category. Americans have like engaged in governments about, in governance, judgments about alcohol. We did it 100 years ago. We're like, we like alcohol. We are willing to absorb the costs associated with alcohol. I'm not going to second guess that, like we live in a republic, we get to govern ourselves and that is a cost that we want to bear. That said, I think there is a strong argument in general that there is a legitimate government interest in the regulation of addictive substances for a variety of reasons. Reason one is that this is a long standing practice. The earliest vice regulations, the bans on gambling specifically go back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These are not recent radical innovations. They are fully in sync with the American tradition of liberty. Which ties into the second point, which is that those in the American republican tradition of liberty would say vice, addiction, things of that nature are a peril to a fundamental American value, which is liberty. That somebody who is addicted to a product is in a robust sense less free than someone who is not. And so there's a legitimate government interest in saying governments are instituted among men, preserve liberties. This is a thing that is a threat to liberty. Therefore we should try to limit access to it as much as possible because we want to preserve liberty. So, you know, my, my view is that you can make that argument for almost any addictive substance. At the end of the day, it won't hold water for everything. And that's, you know, that, that comes down to what the American people want. That's fine with me. But I would, you know, I would certainly caution them against the legalization of heroin, for example, and then the case of something like sports gambling. You know, to me the trade off is obvious. It was relatively easy to get everything that we wanted out of sports Betting under the old regime, and now we're getting everything that we don't want. The old regime just sort of seemed better to me.
- [10:57]
Scott Bertram
What we didn't get out of the old regime was some form of tax revenue, as we do with selling alcohol or marijuana in certain states. What has been the effect on the bottom line for states that have approved legalized sports gambling?
- [11:13]
Charles Fain Lehman
Yeah, the answer is it's pretty negligible. We're talking sub 1% of total state outlays in any given state that's legalized. Revenues from state legal gambling are lower than revenues from all other sin taxes. But also, like syntax is just not a great source of revenue. There are good econometric theories for this, economics theory for this, which is basically like syntaxes have two functions that compete with one another. One is to minimize consumption of the tax product and the other one is to maximize revenue. And to try to maximize revenue, you can't minimize consumption and vice versa. And so the efficient tax is not necessarily revenue maximizing tax. So, you know, states, as a general rule, don't get a lot of money from sin taxes. And they specifically measurably don't currently get a lot of money from sports gambling taxes, nor do I expect them to. It's a $10 billion industry. It will probably get bigger, but it could get five times bigger and still not generate that much tax revenue. Particularly because it's pretty easy to defect to other states. I've always thought this is a red herring. You're never going to fill, if you're Illinois or whatever, you're never going to fill your, your pension shortfall by tax revenue from sports gambling. It's not going to happen.
- [12:28]
Scott Bertram
Charles, we see numerous advertisements for sports gambling outlets on tv, on the radio, everywhere in the middle of games. Networks have now gambling experts who give you tips and encourage you to play. There are partnerships all over the place between networks that broadcast games and sports gambling outlets. Will it be difficult in the future? Do you fear it will be difficult in the future to get an honest account of the effect of sports gambling because so many outlets have financial ties or rely financially on the industry?
- [13:06]
Charles Fain Lehman
I think that that's always a problem. But there are enough people who are not financially invested that we can get the data. It's pretty easy to do. We can get that information. It's pretty easy. You look at something like cigarettes. It took a while to figure out that cigarettes were bad. But we have better methods than we did in the 1960s. And we figured it out pretty quickly relative to you Know, relative to the eventual timeline, people sort of knew that cigarettes were a problem. But, you know, I think. I think the concern there is a legitimate one in the sense, not that we won't be able to find out what's happening, but because it will be hard to do something about it. There's a very obvious example of concentrated benefit, diffuse cost where the sportsbooks have in some sense had free rein to write their own regulations. Nobody else was really paying attention. They were the ones who were ready to go into state legislatures and say, here's what you should set up. In many cases, they have secured monopolies or oligopolies. There really isn't free competition in this space. And legislators and regulators are really only beginning to play catch up. There's like one bill from last session, Congress, that didn't go anywhere, and I don't expect it to go anywhere this time either. So, you know, to me, the bigger concern is there is some amount of profit that is clearly corrupting the game. That is why the Professional Amateur Sports Protection act is passed with the support of every major league across all sports, because they recognize that gambling is a threat to the integrity of the games that they play. I think that the threat to that integrity is here. We have already had minor cheating scandals. I suspect we will get a major cheating scandal before too long. It's going to happen. And I think that then the question is, will regulators act and is there anything to counterbalance the influence of the sportsbooks who are making a lot of money off of this?
- [15:04]
Scott Bertram
Should point people to your piece in the Atlantic. Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake. You can find that at the Atlantic. In it, though, you do advocate for return essentially to pre2018 laws, meaning a prohibition. Why go all of that way and not perhaps rely on a better regulation of the current setup?
- [15:29]
Charles Fain Lehman
You know, look, if we got to regulation, that would be great, but I think that regulation is always hard for the reasons that I previously enumerated. Namely that when you have a legal industry with entities that stand to benefit enormously from the industry, the threat of regulatory capture is real and substantial. We do a terrible job of regulating cigarettes and alcohol in this country. We are dysfunctional, prioritize the wrong things, and still both substances, cigarettes and alcohol, separately kill more people than all legal drugs combined each year. We are not succeeding from a public health regulatory perspective. And the reason for that is it was hard to get the regulators to do anything. It's hard to get anybody to care because we can only really think about legal versus illegal. We can't think of the subtleties of regulation. You know, I am a, I'm a conservative. I am deeply skeptical of the competency of the state as a consequently, I prefer a much simpler, more straightforward regime, which is this thing is not allowed. That is a that is an effective and easy to enforce regime. It's very clear. It requires no regulatory subtlety, requires no central planning in the same way. And so, you know, I tend to prefer that, particularly again, in the case of PASPA or in the case of sports gambling, where the prior regime seemed pretty good. You know, I think you can argue against the efficacy of some other prohibitions, but in that case, we have a living an example in living memory. It was, it worked okay. Like, you know, 2017 was not, you know, we did not live in a substantially less free society and less functional society in 2017 because I couldn't bet on my phone.
- [17:09]
Scott Bertram
Charles Fane Lehman is fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor at City Journal. You can also find him on X. Charles F. Lehman. Charles, thank you so much for joining us again here on Future of freedom.
- [17:22]
Charles Fain Lehman
Great. Thank you.
- [17:24]
Scott Bertram
Now, to hear another side of the argument about the legalization of Internet sports gambling, we talk with Jacob James Rich, policy analyst at Reason Foundation. Jacobs, thanks so much for joining us.
- [17:35]
Jacob James Rich
Thanks for having me.
- [17:36]
Scott Bertram
Scott, Talking about the legalization of sports betting, sports gambling, you wrote a piece that people can find@reason.com legalizing sports betting is the right call. So we know in advance where you're coming from on this particular issue. We've had a couple of years now, Jacob, of legalized sports gambling in the United States. From your perspective, do you see any measurable harm that has been done?
- [18:03]
Jacob James Rich
Not really. We definitely see much more consumer spending going towards sports gambling, especially since it's proliferated online and since states have allowed it to be used online in addition to going into a casino, which has definitely dramatically increased access. But in terms of measurable harm, we usually think of that in terms of like addiction. Right. So some people are addicted to cigarettes, some people are addicted to opioids, and people can also be addicted to gambling. And gambling often destroys families. However, from basically the only state that measures problem gambling, we haven't really seen any sort of dramatic increase in gambling. If you look at New Jersey prior to legalizing sports betting, online sports betting specifically, I think they had about a 5% or I'm sorry, they had about a 6% problem gambling rate. And then since legalizing it, it dropped to 5%, 6% to 5%, which I don't see that as a drop, but I see that as being somewhat continuous and unchanged. But I mean, we probably don't want to base this all on one state, and that's probably why we need better surveillance throughout the country. We definitely want various types of addiction surveys that are put out by the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health or the Behavioral Risk factor surveillance system, like these surveys that are traditionally used to measure alcohol, opioid and marijuana addiction. If they could turn to sports gambling, we would actually have a much better idea of the types of addiction that might be playing out throughout the country since these policies have gone into effect. But we haven't seen any obvious indicator of things are getting worse. The only thing that's really happened is that consumer spending towards sports gambling has gone up. And if you see that as a net bad, then maybe you just think that's bad. But clearly consumers are enjoying it or wanting to participate in gambling, and that's what they've chosen to do, and that's why the market has risen so much.
- [20:10]
Scott Bertram
I just want to be clear on one particular point, because I think it's an important point. You're saying, at least in that one state where we see some data, the percentage of what would be called problem gamblers or those who have severe gambling problems essentially is unchanged, 6%, 5%. That. It seems somewhat counterintuitive, but that's what the numbers say. That's what the numbers say. At least thus far. It doesn't appear as if there are more problem gamblers now than prior to legalizing sports gambling.
- [20:36]
Jacob James Rich
That's very hard to determine. Various academic studies have come out trying to measure this without exact measurements. So like I said before, we don't really have good data on this, and that's why we need good data. But the paper put out, I think, a couple weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, by JAMA Internal Medicine, it was trying to use. It was trying to use searches for gambling services, gambling addiction services, as a proxy for an increase in problematic gambling. However, they showed that there was about a 30% increase in searches for problem gambling in New Jersey. And during that same timeframe, as I just told you, the percentage of problem gambling actually dropped about 15%, or 1 percentage point from 6 to 5%. So you know what I mean? It's been very difficult to measure these things. Even when academics try to measure it and use various types of proxies, they really can't do it in an accurate way. And I don't know if you're familiar with Something that would point to more problematic gambling. Since these things have gone online. I'd love to discuss it, but I haven't quite seen it myself.
- [21:56]
Scott Bertram
Scott, the question about the benefit that the tax revenue that is brought into state coffers from the legalization of sports gambling, has it been enough to offset any potential downside damages to the legalization of sports betting? What does that tax revolt look like in various places?
- [22:17]
Jacob James Rich
Well, it's about 20% of the market. And that money almost never goes to the problems that are associated with what's being taxed. If you look at cigarettes, the cigarette companies were fined and sued hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, and almost none of that money went to addiction treatment for cigarettes. And that's basically what's happening here. Just the tax revenue goes into the states and they throw it into the general coffers. And if you're someone who probably has a gambling addiction of some sort, it's probably not the taxes of gambling that are helping you out in any sort of way.
- [22:53]
Scott Bertram
Talking with Jacob James Rich, policy analyst at Reason foundation at Jacob James Rich on X Prior to the legalization of sports gambling, it's not as if sports gambling did not take place. It took place under the table, so to speak. It took place between friends. By legalizing gambling and allowing professional organizations the ability to advertise, the ability to reach customers and the ability to use their technology, their knowledge, to perhaps lure new customers or to convince existing customers to wager more, we know there are ways that they can, right? That they can, they can perhaps use their services in a way that will make people or encourage people to gamble more or more often. Should we be concerned about that trade off to the legalization side of sports gambling?
- [23:46]
Jacob James Rich
Yeah, I think that's a reasonable thing to be concerned about. You just have to weigh it against what the alternative is. Right. So sports gambling and online gambling was proliferating before it was legalized. Various apps and illegal websites were running various sorts of operations. And that was very hard to measure. It wasn't quite clear how large those markets were. And when you make something legal, you increase access. So people, the marginal person who wouldn't gamble otherwise, whether, unless it was, whether it be legal, that person is now actually using the site. But basically, when you legalize something, you decrease the harm for the people who are probably being harmed the most. Right. So if you're someone who has a gambling addiction, you, if you're turning to illegal sources to gamble, you might be doing it a little bit less because it's illegal and that increases the cost of using it. But you definitely are at risk for more harm. First of all, these companies are acting illegally. They might just steal your money and you don't have any legal recourse to get your money back if you're stolen from. And if you have an addiction, you know what I mean, you're probably going to be using the sites regardless of their legality. Right? Additionally, it's very difficult to identify the people who have addictions when the activity they're doing is illegal. We see this with opioids and prior to legalization, marijuana as well, where people would not go and seek treatment because the thing that they were doing was illegal and they knew they could get in trouble for it. And even to this day, if you try to access opioid addiction treatment, your rights are taken away from you. You are not allowed to own a gun if you receive any sort of medication assisted treatment for opioids. And if gambling was in a similar legal, if it was like similarly illegal, various types of gamblers could be endangering themselves by seeking help. So oftentimes legalization does lead to more use. You might see various harms happen to people that wouldn't otherwise happen. But generally the people who are most harmed benefit through legalization because it just makes their activity more safe. And you can actually identify the people who have a problem easier.
- [26:19]
Scott Bertram
Gambling is available in other areas that are not sports related, whether it be at casinos in various states or in Las Vegas, or I believe it's 45 states that currently run some sort of state lottery system. If people are predisposed to have some sort of gambling problem or end up wagering too much money, or are unable to control those behaviors, will they simply find a different outlet to express that?
- [26:47]
Jacob James Rich
Yes, they will and they historically have. There's been all sorts of underground physical gambling operations that have existed throughout time. So yeah, the answer to that question is clearly yes.
- [26:57]
Scott Bertram
If we think about the specificity of sports gambling compared to other types of gambling, this introduces another factor. And my question is, should it be a concern of those who are considering whether or not to legalize sports gambling? And that is the effect of sports gambling on perhaps match fixing, game fixing, point shaving, corruption, inside professional or college athletics, Is that a consideration that you think should be in the mix when we say yes, it should be legal? No, it should not be legal.
- [27:30]
Jacob James Rich
It most certainly should be. You know, back in the 60s and 70s, I won't, I won't mention the people, but my father, he was a power lifter and he was very good friends with a Big Ten offensive lineman. And it was pretty well speculated that the lineman next to him actually was throwing the game, or I'm sorry, not the lineman, but the running back was throwing the game because he would create these giant holes. And every time you would create these giant holes for the running back to go through, the running back just happened to slip every single time. And then it was quite well speculated that there was some funny business happening because of gambling. And as you're pointing to, as the size of these markets increase, you will probably see more monetary pressure for such fixing to happen. So you have monetary pressure going in one way that increases the likelihood of fixing. However, because these operations are happening legally and it's illegal to participate in point shaving and to throw games, like all that activity, if you're a player and you're caught doing such things, you will get in trouble and the people who pay you will get in trouble. And as I was pointing out earlier, if the organizations that seek to benefit from point shaving and cheating are legal, they will have more. There's definitely going to be a larger incentive for them to stay legal. And operating with illegal activity is going to jeopardize their business. So you'll probably see legal companies less likely participating in such cheating than illegal activities would online. So basically legal sports websites compared to illegal sports websites would be less likely to to participate in this cheating. The only problem is that websites aren't the only people who could be benefiting from such cheating. You could actually be a major better who's participating on the website, but otherwise independent from the website. Maybe you're going to short a team you're expecting. You're shorting a team that's expected to win and then you pay off a player. And that would be very hard to identify. So you basically have incentives going in both directions. You have more money on the line, which increases the likelihood of cheating. But then you also have companies that have a very strong interest in making sure that legal activity is actually happening on their websites. And I'm not quite sure what the cost benefit analysis of this is. And last very quick point, most of these companies don't make money on you losing or winning because there's no because otherwise they would have to be making bets themselves. These companies are actually very risk conservative and what they do is they just take a percentage of the winning. So they're, they're really not too concerned about who wins and who loses. They're going to get a percentage of the pie they just want the entire pie to be large. And they have a very strong incentive for consumers to think that their payings will actually come and for consumers that think that they're working in a market that has no cheating as well. So you do have some good incentives coming from the operators of the businesses as well.
- [30:53]
Scott Bertram
You mentioned earlier in the conversation that there is a need. It would be good to have more information, more studies covering more states that have legalized sports gambling. I realize I'm asking a hypothetical, but if we see in the future these results roll in and it does appear to be a societal harm, a greater societal harm, more problem gamblers. Is there a point or what is the point at which you might think to say, all right, this is actually becoming a major problem, Maybe it is a bad idea?
- [31:28]
Jacob James Rich
Yeah. When I get these questions, I have like two hats I wear. I have what, what would a benevolent or you know, a regulator in good faith want to do? And then what would I want to happen? So I'm a pretty. I call myself liberal and when I say liberal I mean libertarian. But I mean, I think people have the freedom to self determination and it's really difficult for others to like determine what an actual harm is. Because a lot of the studies that I evaluate on, on Reason.org, the paper you're mentioning that I wrote on Reason.org, they point to like reductions in savings. They point to reductions in consumer spending on other types of goods. But it's not necessarily clear that spending money on a bet is worse than spending money on just attending a football game. Right. So if we banned football throughout the country, there would be less spending on tickets. There might be more savings in that way. So when consumers pick their consumption to go towards some sort of activity, it's really hard for someone else to say whether it's good or bad. You really can only identify that at the extreme levels of addiction. So I would be very cautious of interpreting any data that says that things are bad and just understand what the perspective of the consumer is. And understand is it the consumer that's actually being taken advantage of or is it a consumer that's switching their spending to something that they enjoy more? And that's usually really hard to identify. However, if we see major increases in gambling addiction because gambling is more accessible and people who wouldn't gamble otherwise are now gambling, there's probably some public health interventions that a CDC or some sort of health organization would want to put forward. But this is such a new concept. I mean, the Internet's relatively new right, and sports betting being legal is incredibly new. I'm not exactly sure what those interventions look like, and I think an intervention that would just prohibit this market is a really bad idea because we basically run into a drug war type of situation again, and you would create an incredibly violent market that's going to be providing these types of services. And I see people consuming gambling services within the United States, regardless of its legality. So you should probably put it in a regulated system that allows it to exist with the least amount of harm possible.
- [34:12]
Scott Bertram
Jacob James Rich is policy analyst at Reason Foundation. Reason.org you can also find him on X. JacobJamesRich Jacob, thanks so much for joining us here on Future of Freedom.
- [34:24]
Jacob James Rich
Thanks. Thank you so much for having me.
- [34:26]
Scott Bertram
Scott we thank both of our guests for joining us. Charles Fain Layman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute on X. CharlesFlamman and Jacob James Rich, policy analyst at Reason foundation, on XacobJamesRich. For additional episodes of the Future of Freedom podcast and other fine podcasts from America's Talking network, check out americastalking.com or anywhere you find your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, presented by America's Talking.