New Hampshire’s online casino bill passed its first Senate vote on Monday. SB 104 now goes to the Senate Finance Committee. The vote didn’t split along party lines the way most people would expect. Republicans backed it 10-4, while Democrats opposed it 7-3. The bill would send 35% of net online casino profits to scholarships at the Community College System of New Hampshire and 10% to the lottery for administration. State lottery projections put revenue at $5 million in year one, $20 million in year two, and $30 million by year three. The close vote will get the headlines. I’m more interested in how small those revenue numbers are, and who is still opposing the bill anyway.
For context, New Jersey’s online casinos won $259.3 million in August alone, more than Atlantic City’s casino floors. Pennsylvania’s took in $245.7 million, up 6.25% year over year. New Hampshire’s best-case projection for a full year is about one-eighth of what New Jersey makes in a single month. Even so, the opposition is organized. Sen. Bill Gannon and other opponents argue the bill would pull money away from New Hampshire’s 16 charity casinos. Those casinos are required to partner with nonprofits that get a share of table game and historical horse racing revenue. Churchill Downs, which owns Chasers Poker Room and Casino in Salem, is reportedly the only company to oppose the bill publicly. The sponsor, Ways and Means Chairman Tim Lang, has the support of Senate President Jeb Bradley. Lang points to New Jersey as evidence that iGaming adds new revenue instead of taking it from existing casinos. Even with that support, it passed by just two votes.
Ohio is a much bigger prize, with a much bigger obstacle. Rep. Brian Stewart’s HB 298 has been sitting in the House Finance Committee since May 2025, after two hearings, and the session ends in December. Estimates put Ohio iGaming at up to $400 million a year. Stewart says the main obstacle is the legislators themselves. “We just have a lot of legislators that don’t like gambling,” Stewart, 44, said on an iDEA webinar last week. “Legislators my age and below, I get no pushback. My age and above, it’s a much harder sell.” The other obstacle is Gov. Mike DeWine. He has repeatedly opposed online casinos and has said he regrets signing Ohio’s sports betting law. DeWine is term-limited and leaves office in January 2027. Democratic nominee Amy Acton has said she’s open to regulated iGaming, with safeguards for young people and limits on what she called predatory advertising. Republican nominee Vivek Ramaswamy hasn’t taken a clear position, but he wants to eliminate the state income tax. That would leave a revenue gap that $400 million a year could help fill. “The tea leaves are still there,” Stewart said.
What I keep coming back to is how Ohio’s bill is written. It isn’t designed to bring in national brands. HB 298 would limit licenses to Ohio’s existing four casinos and seven racinos. It sets a 28% tax, with 99% going to the General Revenue Fund and 1% to the Problem Gambling Fund. Most notably, it bans promotional credits for online play and only allows promotions tied to in-person gaming, hotel stays, food and entertainment at a casino or racino. Stewart was clear about why. Promotional deductions in Ohio’s sports betting market helped FanDuel and DraftKings dominate over local operators, and this structure is meant to keep the benefit with Ohio’s own casinos. He also wants iGaming passed before VLTs, to avoid what he called “the intramural gambling turf fight.” New Hampshire is making the same calculation from the other side: its bill passes or fails depending on whether the charity casinos believe they’ll be protected.
That’s the real lesson from both states. Since the first states legalized online casinos, revenue estimates have rarely been enough to get a bill passed. What has worked is convincing existing casinos they won’t lose out, and showing skeptical legislators there’s a credible plan for problem gambling. Stewart put it in terms DeWine has used: “If I want to gamble all day on my phone, I can do it all day, and nobody knows,” and supporters need “a compelling answer to why it’s acceptable.” New Hampshire’s bill survived by two votes because Lang made that case to just enough Republicans. Ohio’s best chance is in 2027, with a new governor, a revenue gap if the income tax is cut, and a bill that keeps the national operators from getting the same advantages they had in sports betting.
