- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 89,679
SOURCE
An Ohio lawmaker’s effort to legalize online casino gaming is unlikely to move before the end of the year, but the structure
of the state’s stalled iGaming bill offers a preview of how supporters could approach the issue when a new governor takes office in 2027.
Rep. Brian Stewart, a sponsor of House Bill 298, said during an iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA) webinar last week
that the central challenge of passing an iGaming law is persuading a legislature with deep skepticism of gambling expansion that online
casinos can produce new revenue without undermining the casinos and racinos already operating in Ohio, and ensuring
problem gambling does not spiral out of control.
“We just have a lot of legislators that don’t like gambling,” Stewart, 44, said. “Legislators my age and below, I get no pushback.
My age and above, it’s a much harder sell.”
Cincinnati skyline by night (Image: Sean Pavone/Shutterstock)
Robust gambling market already in place
Ohio has a substantial existing gambling market with four casinos, seven racinos, retail and online Sports Betting, lottery products
and a population that makes it a potentially major iGaming jurisdiction.
But the state’s most significant iGaming obstacle has been Gov. Mike DeWine. The term-limited governor has repeatedly opposed
online casino expansion, linking the issue to his regret over signing Ohio’s Sports Betting law and to concerns about the accessibility
of online gambling and problem-gambling risk.
Beyond DeWine, Stewart said some of the resistance predates the state’s Sports Betting launch. Ohio voters approved casino gambling
through a 2009 constitutional amendment, which has stayed with some lawmakers opposed to the industry, he said. Stewart also said
other legislators who were not in office when Sports Betting passed in 2021 now have their own chance to oppose another gambling expansion.
Finance at issue as well
The other argument is fiscal. Stewart said Ohio’s long-running Republican “white whale” goal of eliminating the state income tax has
made it harder to avoid the question of how the state will replace revenue without raising other taxes.
With estimates that iGaming could generate as much as $400m annually, Stewart said iGaming could become part of that calculation,
even if it has not yet been enough to move legislation.
“The tea leaves are still there,” he said.
Current Ohio iGaming bill a starting point
Stewart introduced HB 298 in May 2025, and it remains in the House Finance Committee after two hearings. The session ends in December. The bill would:
Authorize internet gambling regulated by the Ohio Casino Control Commission
Impose a 28% tax on internet gambling receipts
Direct 99% of tax proceeds to the state’s General Revenue Fund and 1% to the Problem Gambling Fund.
Rather than opening the market to national online casino brands, HB 298 would limit licenses to Ohio’s existing casinos and racinos.
Stewart said that approach was deliberate. Restricting skins to existing brick-and-mortar licensees is intended to address concerns
that iGaming would cannibalize the businesses that already employ Ohioans and generate tax revenue.
That is a similar reason Stewart said proponents are pushing iGaming before an effort to legalize video lottery terminals.
“If video lottery terminals had proliferated, it would make it that much harder to do,” Stewart said. “[There would be] that many more
opponents of gaming expansion that we’d have to fight. It’s minimizing the intramural gambling turf fight [that] has the ability to ground any bill.”
Retail incentives could be central
Stewart said promotional credits are another area where Ohio may take a different path from its Sports Betting market.
HB 298 prohibits licensed internet gambling operators from providing promotional credits for online gambling. It would allow promotions
tied to in-person gaming, accommodations, food, beverages, entertainment and other offerings at a casino or racino.
The distinction could become especially important in a future proposal, as Stewart said promotional deductions in online Sports Betting
helped national brands such as FanDuel and DraftKings establish dominance over local operators. A retail-centered promotions structure,
he suggested, could direct the benefits of iGaming toward local casinos rather than simply subsidizing digital customer acquisition.
That strategy does not eliminate cannibalization concerns, but it gives casinos and racinos a clearer role in the iGaming framework.
It also gives legislators a tangible answer to what online expansion would do for the state’s existing gaming sector.
An Ohio lawmaker’s effort to legalize online casino gaming is unlikely to move before the end of the year, but the structure
of the state’s stalled iGaming bill offers a preview of how supporters could approach the issue when a new governor takes office in 2027.
Rep. Brian Stewart, a sponsor of House Bill 298, said during an iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA) webinar last week
that the central challenge of passing an iGaming law is persuading a legislature with deep skepticism of gambling expansion that online
casinos can produce new revenue without undermining the casinos and racinos already operating in Ohio, and ensuring
problem gambling does not spiral out of control.
“We just have a lot of legislators that don’t like gambling,” Stewart, 44, said. “Legislators my age and below, I get no pushback.
My age and above, it’s a much harder sell.”
Cincinnati skyline by night (Image: Sean Pavone/Shutterstock)
Robust gambling market already in place
Ohio has a substantial existing gambling market with four casinos, seven racinos, retail and online Sports Betting, lottery products
and a population that makes it a potentially major iGaming jurisdiction.
But the state’s most significant iGaming obstacle has been Gov. Mike DeWine. The term-limited governor has repeatedly opposed
online casino expansion, linking the issue to his regret over signing Ohio’s Sports Betting law and to concerns about the accessibility
of online gambling and problem-gambling risk.
Beyond DeWine, Stewart said some of the resistance predates the state’s Sports Betting launch. Ohio voters approved casino gambling
through a 2009 constitutional amendment, which has stayed with some lawmakers opposed to the industry, he said. Stewart also said
other legislators who were not in office when Sports Betting passed in 2021 now have their own chance to oppose another gambling expansion.
Finance at issue as well
The other argument is fiscal. Stewart said Ohio’s long-running Republican “white whale” goal of eliminating the state income tax has
made it harder to avoid the question of how the state will replace revenue without raising other taxes.
With estimates that iGaming could generate as much as $400m annually, Stewart said iGaming could become part of that calculation,
even if it has not yet been enough to move legislation.
“The tea leaves are still there,” he said.
Current Ohio iGaming bill a starting point
Stewart introduced HB 298 in May 2025, and it remains in the House Finance Committee after two hearings. The session ends in December. The bill would:
Authorize internet gambling regulated by the Ohio Casino Control Commission
Impose a 28% tax on internet gambling receipts
Direct 99% of tax proceeds to the state’s General Revenue Fund and 1% to the Problem Gambling Fund.
Rather than opening the market to national online casino brands, HB 298 would limit licenses to Ohio’s existing casinos and racinos.
Stewart said that approach was deliberate. Restricting skins to existing brick-and-mortar licensees is intended to address concerns
that iGaming would cannibalize the businesses that already employ Ohioans and generate tax revenue.
That is a similar reason Stewart said proponents are pushing iGaming before an effort to legalize video lottery terminals.
“If video lottery terminals had proliferated, it would make it that much harder to do,” Stewart said. “[There would be] that many more
opponents of gaming expansion that we’d have to fight. It’s minimizing the intramural gambling turf fight [that] has the ability to ground any bill.”
Retail incentives could be central
Stewart said promotional credits are another area where Ohio may take a different path from its Sports Betting market.
HB 298 prohibits licensed internet gambling operators from providing promotional credits for online gambling. It would allow promotions
tied to in-person gaming, accommodations, food, beverages, entertainment and other offerings at a casino or racino.
The distinction could become especially important in a future proposal, as Stewart said promotional deductions in online Sports Betting
helped national brands such as FanDuel and DraftKings establish dominance over local operators. A retail-centered promotions structure,
he suggested, could direct the benefits of iGaming toward local casinos rather than simply subsidizing digital customer acquisition.
That strategy does not eliminate cannibalization concerns, but it gives casinos and racinos a clearer role in the iGaming framework.
It also gives legislators a tangible answer to what online expansion would do for the state’s existing gaming sector.