Religious leaders and ministries campaign against legalizing online gambling in Ohio
Despite more and more states warming up to online casino legalization – following in the footsteps of Delaware online casinos – some states, particularly red states, are struggling with the process of legalization due to religious barriers.
In Ohio, more than 100 pastors and religious figures have penned a letter against proposals to legalize online casino gambling in the state.
The religious collective are urging lawmakers to say “no dice” to the expansion of gambling in the Buckeye State, with Rep. Gary Click, also a pastor, lending his voice to the campaign.
Their concerns detailed a “predatory system” that would take vital income from struggling Ohioans and funnel the profits to out-of-state corporations, asking Gov. Mike DeWine and the Legislature to reject the plans.
However there may be a few factors relgious parties aren’t taking into consideration…
Current gambling situation in Ohio
As it stands, there are currently 11 land-based casinos and racinos across Ohio.
Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo – the four largest cities in the state – each have a full-service casino facility that offers slots, table games and live poker, with lesser facilities at the other locations.
Sports betting is permitted in various physical sportsbooks, as well as at kiosks throughout the state, but the proposed changes moving through the Ohio legislature would change everything.
That is something Rep. Click and the religious group are opposing, largely due to concerns of further gambling harm.
“As we increase gambling, especially online gambling, we are hurting, we are harming, the most vulnerable people in the state of Ohio”, he said in the Legislature, as reported by the Statehouse News Bureau.
Click has stated that he cannot vote for a bill that allows for extended gambling, especially when it will impact the most vulnerable.
Proposals to legalize online casinos in Ohio
Sen. Nathan Manning is the sponsor of Senate Bill 197, which would expand and grow the gambling framework in Ohio.
His proposal is the one being opposed by the religious leaders and ministries, but it is one of several currently gathering pace.
Another is House Bill 298, sponsored by Rep. Brian Stewart. It would introduce 11 online licenses, one for each of the existing casinos in the state, with each enterprise permitted to partner with an online operator for just one skin.
Each license would cost $50m for a five-year period.
Last week, the legislature heard key testimonies from various other groups campaigning against the introduction of online gambling, including the Ohio Harness Horsemen’s Association, the National Association Against iGaming, the National Campaign for Fairer Gambling and workers’ unions.
One of the key soundbites of the day was that the plans would put “a casino in the pocket” of every person in Ohio, placing them at direct risk of unrestricted gambling harm.
Crucially, the religious group will be hoping that Gov. DeWine maintains his tough rhetoric against online gambling.
However, the Governor would not confirm if he was completely opposed to the plans, or if he would deploy a veto. It is clear he still needs to be won over, but he appears to have left the door open for a compromise.
He and other lawmakers will be aware of the need to increase state revenue, and the funding stream that could emanate from the proliferation of online gambling.
Ohio tax revenue predictions
Manning’s bill would legislate for iGaming and iLottery with a 36% tax rate and a $50m five-year licensing fee – similar to Stewart’s House Bill 298.
Stewart’s bill would set taxes at 28% with restrictions on bonuses offered, on online platforms, and the use of credit cards would also be prohibited.
There would be no provisions for online sweepstakes casinos, with the law banning them under a clear definition.
Rep. Manning set out the crucial revenue that could be generated, and he believes the expansion can be rolled out imminently.
“I think we can be up and running pretty quickly if we get this ed, certainly if it goes in the budget, obviously,” he said, speaking after the committee he chairs heard the details of his bill.
“The revenue the first year, a lot of people are projecting a little bit more like $300m. In a fully mature market, more like $600m to $900m.”
Stewart’s bill estimates that legalized online gambling in Ohio would return $400m to $800m annually in new tax revenues, with 99% to be directed to the state general fund and the remainder allocated to address gambling harm.
Both representatives are on the same track for revenue projections, with the obvious boost in state and local taxes that would come from online casino revenue.
If the money isn’t going to Ohio, where is it going?
The fiscal aspect cannot be overlooked, and neither can the current drain of funds to illicit gambling platforms that have no effective oversight, player protections, or tax gains for Ohio.
Customers are much safer in a regulated market than in an unregulated market, where themselves and their data are not cared for, or backed by any commissions.
Manning went on to detail how estimates show that Ohio residents spend more than $2bn each year on illegal gambling sites.
He commented that providing an approved, regulated space for those gambling forms would enable the state to introduce safeguards.
If nothing is done, the drift is likely to continue.
Gamblers are obviously enticed by an offering that is not currently available, or easily accessible, so it makes sense to consider that it could well be online casino gambling that s want.
Of course, there needs to be safeguards and limitations, but a regulated space fills the void currently occupied by illicit providers, while there is also the tax benefit for universal state needs such as health and education, that comes with legalizing.
How much could Ohio make if they legalized online casinos?
According to our findings, predicted online gambling revenue state-by-state could give Ohio $2.44bn in revenue.
If taxed at a rate of 20% the state could see $488.5m in tax revenue, and if taxed at a rate of 30% Ohio state could generate an eye-watering $732.8m in tax revenue, annually.
There is disagreement among lawmakers on how the tax revenue should be utilized, and it appears foolish to use it to lower taxes for high earners, to the detriment of public service projects, but first, legislation needs to be ed and that is not guaranteed.
There are hurdles to overcome and skepticism from key figures such as Gov. DeWine, while the concerns of many, including the religious campaigners, will need to be adequately addressed – the pros appear to outweigh the cons when it comes to protecting s and generating extra revenue for the state.
