Ohio lawmakers heard testimony from several parties on Tuesday who oppose the idea of legalizing online casino gambling in the state.
Rep. Brian Stewart’s HB 298 is one of multiple proposals to bring online casino to the state that are currently in play in the legislature. It would provide for 11 licenses, one for each of the state’s casinos and racinos, which would cost $50 million for five years. Those existing retail operators could partner with one vendors to run their online casino sites, but would get only one skin.
Stewart’s bill would tax online casino gaming at 28%.
It would also implement numerous market restrictions, such as banning the use of credit cards and prohibiting bonuses and promo credits specific to online gambling while retainining them for land-based gaming.
The bill would also clearly define and ban online sweepstakes casinos.
Where would the money go?
In the hearing of the House Finance Committee, which Stewart chairs, much of the debate centered on how revenue from online casino gambling would be used.
Stewart has estimated that the proposed tax rate could generate between $400 and $800 million annually in new revenue. His bill proposes that 99% of that would go into the state general fund, while the other 1% would be dedicated to problem gambling resources and supports.
Some witnesses testified in Tuesday’s hearing to argue that, instead, revenue from legalizing online casino should be used to help lower state taxes for Ohio residents rather than for services such as schools, healthcare and other necessities.
Rep. Dani Isaacsohn voiced concern that a witness proposal to use the funds to cut income taxes would benefit only high earners in Ohio rather than the areas of society that may need it most.
“The message here is, please, please, please legalize one of the most addicting activities to be on people’s phones, but please use the money to cut taxes for people earning six figures or more, and do not, under any circumstances, use the money to improve schools?” asked Isaacsohn.
Brian Wyman, EVP of non-partisan research firm the Innovation Group, presented findings of the much-referenced study which suggested that Ohio online casino would bring around $655 million in new tax revenue, but would cannibalize revenue at land-based casinos and racinos by approximately 16%, which he suggested could have significant knock-on effects on the state economy.
He called the need to make a decision on online casino “an unenviable task.”
Concerns over having ‘a casino in every pocket’
Other testimony came from the likes of workers’ unions, the Ohio Harness Horsemen’s Association, the National Association Against iGaming and the National Campaign for Fairer Gambling.
The buzzphrase of the day was arguably the notion that legalizing mobile casino gaming would put “a casino in the pocket” of every of-age Ohioan, with several testifiers warninf of the potential problem gambling impacts.
That echoes language from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who warned last week that legalizing online casino in Ohio could increase addiction.
“Just so everybody understands, this would be 24-7,” DeWine said, per Cleveland.com. “Anybody who’s got an iPhone could basically have a casino there. And the potential for addiction is just massive.
“This is not just an incremental increase in gaming. This literally puts it in anybody’s hands — a 19-year-old, an 18-year-old, a 16-year-old. It puts in their hands the ability to game constantly, all day, any day, 2 a.m. It’s right there.”
The governor reportedly did not directly answer a question about whether he would seek to veto online casino legislation, but he is far from sold on the proposals.
Tuesday’s hearing was adjourned without a vote. Meanwhile, another iCasino proposal, Sen. Nathan Manning’s SB 197, is also undergoing committee debate in its own chamber. Manning’s bill would tax online casino higher, at either 36% or 40%, and would also legalize online lottery.
