- Ohio lawmakers have fielded a second bill to authorize iGaming
- Ohio is home to in-person casino gambling but not online casinos
- Ohio does allow online sports betting
More lawmakers in Ohio are getting on board with online casino gambling.
This week, Reps. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) and Marilyn John (R-Richland) filed House Bill 298, legislation to legalize online casino games, including internet slots and interactive table games. The statute would also include online poker.
We already have online gambling in other forms,” John said regarding Ohio’s online sports betting market. “[iGaming] is a job creator — job creation in technological development.”
Stewart estimates that Ohio could receive between $400 million to $800 million a year in new tax revenue from a mature iGaming market.
HB298 would additionally prohibit online sweepstakes platforms from operating within Ohio. Controversial websites and apps that many critics allege constitute illegal, unregulated online gambling continue to face legal scrutiny in the Buckeye State.
HB298 follows an iGaming bill introduced in the Ohio Senate last week. Senate Bill 197 seeks to additionally allow the Ohio Lottery to operate instant games online.
Costly Concessions
Stewart and John have proposed allowing each casino operator possessing a brick-and-mortar gaming license to seek an iGaming permit. Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos, the latter of which can only operate video lottery terminals and sports betting — not live-dealer table games — would qualify for an online casino skin.
Entry into the state’s iGaming market would be expensive, as each iGaming license would cost $50 million upfront and would be renewed every five years for $10 million.
Gross gaming revenue generated by the online casinos would be subject to a 28% state tax. Almost all — 99% — of the iGaming taxes would go to the state’s General Fund. Just 1% would be allocated to problem gambling programs.
HB298 would allow a smaller, more limited iGaming environment. Along with not authorizing iLottery, Stewart and John wouldn’t allow online parimutuel wagering as SB197 would.
With iGaming bills introduced in both chambers of the Ohio Legislature, Stewart and John say they’ll work with Sen. Nathan Manning (R-Ridgeville), the chief author of SB197, in crafting an online casino compromise.
iGaming Opposition
Ohio’s oldest casino operator, Jack Entertainment, which operates Jack Cleveland, a casino, and Jack Thistledown, a racino, opposes online gambling. Churchill Downs, which has a 50% stake in Miami Valley Gaming, a racino, generally does, too.
MGM Resorts, Boyd Gaming, and Penn Entertainment, which are also invested in Ohio, have generally supported iGaming in states where it’s been considered.
John rebuffed Jack’s previous arguments that online casinos poach business from physical casinos where guests also spend money on food and drinks and keep many more employees employed than an online casino does. John believes that iGaming simply grows the “consumer base” of gamblers and allows those “who prefer an online setting” to gamble in a regulated, taxed environment.
Other opponents to iGaming cite addiction concerns. State Rep. Dani Isaacsohn (D-Cincinnati) says putting casinos in Ohioans’ pockets would raise the stakes regarding gambling addiction and the many societal problems that come with it.
“What we’d be saying with this bill is that it’s worth it to have thousands — if not tens of thousands — of people at increased risk of suicide,” Isaacsohn opined.
The post Another Online Casino Bill Introduced in Ohio, Legislature Preps Collaboration appeared first on Casino.org.
Leave a Reply