Comprised of key lawmakers, this commission held four meetings this spring, diving deep into the current state of Ohio’s gambling industry. Their findings have ignited discussions about expanding Ohio online casinos, particularly iGaming and iLottery, with significant implications for the state’s revenue and regulatory landscape.
Lawmakers Weigh the Benefits and Risks of Ohio iGaming Expansion
The commission’s report included letters from several influential legislators who are cautiously optimistic about the benefits of online casino legalization. Three Republican House members — Reps. Jay Edwards, Jeff LaRe, and Cindy Abrams — were among the most vocal proponents. In a joint letter, they emphasized that while the state should tread carefully, iGaming could be a “net benefit” to Ohio. They acknowledged that with the right regulatory framework, online gambling could thrive without negatively impacting the existing brick-and-mortar casinos and racinos in the state.
Edwards, who co-chaired the commission alongside Sen. Nathan Manning, expressed his belief that Ohioans are already engaging in online gambling through illicit markets, making regulation a sensible next step. Democratic Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney echoed this sentiment, noting that the expansion of online gambling seems inevitable, particularly given the trends in neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
“The reality is that many other states are moving in this direction and Ohioans are already using the illicit market,” Sweeney wrote, advocating for a thorough vetting process before legalization.
However, the path to legalization is fraught with challenges. One of the most significant concerns is the potential impact on Ohio’s existing gambling infrastructure. Some stakeholders, particularly those representing brick-and-mortar Ohio casinos, worry that online casinos could cannibalize their business.
Dan Reinhard, a lobbyist for JACK Entertainment in Cleveland, voiced this concern, stating that iGaming might threaten businesses with substantial investments in the state.
“When you look at a dangerous product with a high prevalence of gambling addiction that’s going to eat into your existing brick-and-mortar base, you look at what it’s going to do. How is it going to benefit Ohio?” Reinhard questioned.
Challenges Ahead: The Role of Governor DeWine and Senate Resistance
The commission’s work also highlighted the cautious stance of some legislators, particularly in the Senate, where resistance to expanding gambling is more pronounced. Manning noted that while the House might lead the charge, the Senate would take longer to convince.
“I know with my Republican colleagues in the Senate, there are a lot of concerns about expanding any gaming in the state, let alone something like iGaming,” Manning said, adding that the Senate isn’t likely to rush into approving online casino legislation.
Governor Mike DeWine’s stance on gambling also presents a significant hurdle. Known for his reservations about expanding gambling, DeWine has previously expressed regret over signing the sports betting bill and led efforts to double the tax rate on sports betting. Many legislators, including Sen. Bill DeMora, believe that getting DeWine’s signature on an online casino bill would be a “tall task.”
Given these challenges, many in the commission believe that Ohio is still a few years away from legalizing online casinos. Edwards suggested that the next opportunity might come in 2027, with the introduction of a new governor who could be more open to expanding the state’s gambling offerings. Until then, Ohio lawmakers will likely continue to refine their approach, ensuring that any future legislation addresses the concerns of all stakeholders involved.
