Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has long been skeptical of the idea of legalizing online casino, but he is becoming increasingly vocal that this is something the state should avoid.
The governor spoke to local media this week about the legislative push for online gambling expansion in the state.
“I’m not for it,” he said frankly, as first reported by Cleveland.com.
“Basically, to put a casino in everybody’s hands, 24/7, I think is probably not a great idea. And I think it will cause more pain and suffering in regards to addiction as far as gambling addiction.”
Ohio currently has two online casino bills in play, one in the Senate and another in the House of Representatives, although neither SB 197 nor HB 198 has made any progress beyond being introduced and discussed in committee. DeWine has used that language about putting “a casino in everybody’s hands” before, and it surfaced again in almost identical form at a hearing for Rep. Brian Stewart’s HB 298 on June 3.
As it does in most states considering online casino gaming, the debate on whether or not to legalize those offerings in Ohio has centered on multiple familiar issues. Opponents cite key concerns such as the potential of increased addiction and problem gambling and worries about cannibalizing retail casinos, while advocates point to revenue creation opportunities, the success of online sports betting and the fact that many Ohioans are likely already gambling online without player protection, regulatory oversight or financial benefits to the state.
The likelihood of either online casino bill passing the legislature and reaching DeWine’s desk seems slim. If that did happen, would he look to veto the legislation?
“I don’t usually use the ‘V-word,” he noted. “But, you know, I’m very much against this. I think we probably have enough gambling in the state already.”
Two bills with different approaches
Stewart has argued that legalizing online casino is not as great a leap as some suggest it is, given that the Buckeye State already has legal slots and table games in physical casinos as well as retail and mobile sports betting.
His bill would allow for 11 licenses, one for each of the state’s casinos and racinos. Operators who have no current retail gaming presence in the state would not qualify, while existing retail operators could each partner with one vendor to run one online casino site. HB 298 would tax online casino gaming at 28%, higher than the state’s online sports betting rate.
As well as attempting to protect the interests of land-based casinos with its licensing stipulations, it would implement numerous market restrictions, such as banning credit cards for deposits, prohibiting online sweepstakes casinos and rejecting bonuses and promo credits specific to online gambling while retaining them for land-based gaming.
Meanwhile, Sen. Nathan Manning‘s bill differs in that it would allow outside operators to enter the market, but would charge them a higher tax rate, 40% vs. 36%. Existing brick-and-mortar casinos using an online casino platform that they own at least half of, such as Caesars or PENN Entertainment, would be taxed at 36% and pay $50 million for a five-year license fee, while untethered license-holders using a third-party platform would have to pay twice as much for a license.
Stewart has estimated that the proposed tax rate could generate between $400 and $800 million annually in new revenue.
