- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 88,722
SOURCE
The Maine Gambling Control Board (MGCB) sent a letter to Gov. Janet Mills in mid-December calling on her to veto a regulated iGaming bill.
Maine’s legislature passed LD 1164 in 2025, a measure that would allow online casino gambling under the exclusivity of the
Wabanaki Tribes. Mills’ office opposed the proposal in last year’s session and held the bill in the summer. When lawmakers
reconvene on Jan. 7, Mills will have until Jan. 10 to either sign or veto the bill. If she does neither, it would become law through her inaction.
all partnered with either Caesars or DraftKings for retail and online Sports Betting. The bill made it through both chambers and
reached Mills’ desk, but not without notable opposition from several corners.
The proposal faced pushback from online gaming giant FanDuel and in-state commercial casino operators
Churchill Downs and PENN Entertainment on its journey through the legislature in 2025. As well as those companies,
Mills’ office, the Department of Health and Human Services, the MGCB and the Maine Gambling Control Unit (MGCU) all testified in opposition.
At a Dec. 16 MGCB meeting, members unanimously voted 5-0 to send a letter to Mills that had been prepared by Silver.
“I think there’s a real threat here to a number of issues with this bill,” said Silver at the meeting. “I probably differ from the
licensees in that I actually support iGaming, just not in this format that cuts them out. I think everyone should have an opportunity
to get a license, whether it be the casinos, the tribes, but creating this monopoly I think will have extreme effects.”
In the letter, first reported by Sports Betting Dime, Silver called the idea of cutting out Churchill Downs’ Oxford Casino
and PENN’s Hollywood Casino “ill-advised” and “harmful” to consumers and Maine casino employees workers, citing the
threat of job losses. Silver and the board also highlighted a potential increase in gambling addiction and the prospect of lost
revenues for education and other community causes as other reasons why Mills should not sign the bill.
games at casinos, LD 1164 would put the MGCU in charge of iGaming oversight.
“Dividing up regulatory authority whereby the same game (blackjack, for example) is regulated by the Board in a casino,
but the Unit on the Internet, makes no sense and will lead to potentially conflicting rules and regulations as we have seen
from the Sports Betting rollout,” Silver wrote.
“We’re tasked by statute to regulate slots, table games, electronic table games,” he said in the Dec. 16 meeting. “In my opinion,
that’s exactly what this is, it’s just in a different format.”
He acknowledged that even if Mills vetoed the bill, legislators could override the veto via a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.
“But I think we have a responsibility,” he added. “Hopefully, [the letter] gets read, maybe it doesn’t. But at least we know
we did what we could, because I think we owe that to our licensees and their employees.”
The Maine Gambling Control Board (MGCB) sent a letter to Gov. Janet Mills in mid-December calling on her to veto a regulated iGaming bill.
Maine’s legislature passed LD 1164 in 2025, a measure that would allow online casino gambling under the exclusivity of the
Wabanaki Tribes. Mills’ office opposed the proposal in last year’s session and held the bill in the summer. When lawmakers
reconvene on Jan. 7, Mills will have until Jan. 10 to either sign or veto the bill. If she does neither, it would become law through her inaction.
iGaming bill is ‘a threat,’ says MGCB
LD 1164 would legalize iGaming but put it purely in the hands of the state’s four federally recognized tribes, who are currentlyall partnered with either Caesars or DraftKings for retail and online Sports Betting. The bill made it through both chambers and
reached Mills’ desk, but not without notable opposition from several corners.
The proposal faced pushback from online gaming giant FanDuel and in-state commercial casino operators
Churchill Downs and PENN Entertainment on its journey through the legislature in 2025. As well as those companies,
Mills’ office, the Department of Health and Human Services, the MGCB and the Maine Gambling Control Unit (MGCU) all testified in opposition.
At a Dec. 16 MGCB meeting, members unanimously voted 5-0 to send a letter to Mills that had been prepared by Silver.
“I think there’s a real threat here to a number of issues with this bill,” said Silver at the meeting. “I probably differ from the
licensees in that I actually support iGaming, just not in this format that cuts them out. I think everyone should have an opportunity
to get a license, whether it be the casinos, the tribes, but creating this monopoly I think will have extreme effects.”
In the letter, first reported by Sports Betting Dime, Silver called the idea of cutting out Churchill Downs’ Oxford Casino
and PENN’s Hollywood Casino “ill-advised” and “harmful” to consumers and Maine casino employees workers, citing the
threat of job losses. Silver and the board also highlighted a potential increase in gambling addiction and the prospect of lost
revenues for education and other community causes as other reasons why Mills should not sign the bill.
Who will guard the gaming?
The MGCB also noted that while it has statutory responsibility for regulating slots, table games and electronic tablegames at casinos, LD 1164 would put the MGCU in charge of iGaming oversight.
“Dividing up regulatory authority whereby the same game (blackjack, for example) is regulated by the Board in a casino,
but the Unit on the Internet, makes no sense and will lead to potentially conflicting rules and regulations as we have seen
from the Sports Betting rollout,” Silver wrote.
“We’re tasked by statute to regulate slots, table games, electronic table games,” he said in the Dec. 16 meeting. “In my opinion,
that’s exactly what this is, it’s just in a different format.”
He acknowledged that even if Mills vetoed the bill, legislators could override the veto via a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.
“But I think we have a responsibility,” he added. “Hopefully, [the letter] gets read, maybe it doesn’t. But at least we know
we did what we could, because I think we owe that to our licensees and their employees.”
