Ohio legislators are willing to roll the dice on an online gambling expansion. A bill has been tabled that would legalise digital casino games, horse racing, and lottery offerings. However, the proposal has raised concerns and questions.
Inside Senate Bill 197
Previously, Sen. Nathan Manning (R-North Ridgeville) introduced Senate Bill 197, which is a 700-measure that would permit iGaming and iLottery with a 36% tax rate. This rate would spike to 40% for those who partner with external operators like FanDuel and DraftKings. The legislation would also impose a US$50 million licensing fee for gaming operators.
Similar to mobile sports betting, iGaming would be under the supervision of the Ohio Casino Control Commission, which would license third-party operators.
If passed, the legislation would make Ohio the eighth U.S. state to offer regulated internet gaming. The other seven states are Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.
Optimism and Revenue Projections
In an interview, after the committee heard specifics of the bill, Manning expressed his optimism about the legislation, saying, “can be up and running pretty quickly” if it’s included in the budget.
He also gave a quick prediction on what the market could bring in terms of revenue:
“The revenue in the first year, a lot of people are projecting a little bit more like US$300 million. In a fully mature market, more like US$600 to US$900 million,” commented Manning.
Tackling Illegal iGaming
The Senator also shared that Ohio bettors are already pouring millions into iGaming on illegal websites, saying that the number could vary between US$600 million and US$2.2 billion on those unregulated platforms.
That’s why he believes the state should introduce its own iGaming sector. The market would have protections in place to safeguard consumers.
“Let's get the safeguards around it. Let's help people who need help. And quite frankly, I mean, it's a big number, but I think it's like 2% of people have gambling issues. And while that is a significant number of people in the state of Ohio, most people who want to be able to just do it responsibly can. It's a form of entertainment.”
Opposition to Rushed Legislation
However, Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus), who’s also part of the committee, is concerned about a potential iGaming expansion. He admits to liking betting on horse races and that he’s not against gambling, but is not a fan of hasty gambling expansion.
Here’s what DeMora said on the topic of iGaming:
“I'm worried that we're gonna try to get this done in three weeks, four weeks, in time for the budget,” DeMora said. “And anything rushed through the legislature ends up being and having all kinds of loopholes and stuff in it. And I worry about that.”
Questions About Revenue Use
Before that, Manning explained that the iGaming bill would channel the betting revenue to the general revenue fund. However, DeMora is worried about where the funds would go, as it could mean that it would be used to tax cut for the wealthy.
“Stadium funding has been mentioned. I've heard it from several people. I want to see what the details are because I'm not just giving billionaires money to build domed stadiums because I'm morally opposed to that, too,” added DeMora.
Social Concerns and Conservative Opposition
Some are outright against a gambling expansion in the Buckeye State. For instance, the Centre for Christian Virtue has expressed strong opposition to the legislation. The conservative group said the availability of more betting options would victimise people already oppressed by the casino industry.
Furthermore, Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) insists that a portion of the new revenue must be used to support mental health programs. In his words, more gambling products would lead to a rise in gambling-related issues and addictions.
Speaker Huffman Voices Caution
Last week, House Speaker Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said the state has “turned the corner” on viewing gambling as a revenue source. However, this week he voiced increased concern about addiction as he discussed where the new funds might go.
“At the moment, I think it ought to go into the General Revenue Fund. Maybe we can do that to reduce income tax or some other tax in the future. But at the moment, until I see some other proposal, that's where I think we’ll be,” explained Huffman.
Brick-and-Mortar Casinos Have Mixed Feelings
The land-based casino operators have shown mixed feelings about the possible iGaming expansion. For example, companies like MGM Resorts, Boyd Gaming, and Penn Entertainment, which operate a large portion of casinos and racinos in Ohio, seem to be in favour of the iGaming initiative.
However, others like the locally-based and oldest gaming firm in the state, Jack Entertainment, has spoken against online gambling on numerous occasions. The company runs Jack Cleveland and Jack Thisltedown.
The Kentucky-headquartered Churchill Downs is also not a fan of the proposed iGaming bill. The company owns 50% of Miami Valley Gaming, which is a harness race track and racino in Turtlecreek.
What’s Next?
Now, Senate Bill 197 will head to the Senate Select Committee on Gaming for review. Still, it remains to be seen how much momentum it will get. The previous attempt to legalise iGaming was Senate Bill 312, which failed at the end of 2024.
However, this new legislation seems to have a little bit more support, which could be just enough to make it.
