House and Senate online casino gambling bills are winding their way through the Maryland legislature. However, several previous attempts have been unsuccessful, and it is uncertain as to whether either of these bills can garner enough support to finally bring iGaming to the Old Line State.
House Bill 17
If State Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary has her way, her online casino gambling bill, HB-17, will reach the governor’s desk for his signature at the end of the session. This means those who want to spin the roulette wheel, play blackjack, poker, or pull a virtual slot on their mobile device or PC will be legally allowed to do so.
A long legislative journey awaits, but the 49-year-old Democrat believes there is justification for her colleagues to back her bill and introduce another revenue stream for the government. A similar bill, SB 340, filed in the upper chamber by Senator Ron Watson, would essentially effectuate the same result with slight variations, including a 20% tax on table games and a 55% tax on slot revenue.
Both lawmakers made similar attempts last year without success, but there appears to be a bit more appetite for iGaming around the nation’s state legislatures this year, and some believe the opposition is weakening.
Guardrails for Gambling
Atterbeary’s bill would impose a 15% tax on iGaming operators’ revenues and would allow only those that currently hold casino licenses in the state, as well as their partners, to apply for iGaming licenses. The bill also has guardrails for underage and problem gambling in addition to establishing cybersecurity protection for customers’ data.
Atterbeary introduced the bill by saying, “We’ve seen other states significantly boost their economies with online gaming. This legislation will bring Maryland into the future while providing critical funding for education and other essential services.”
Pushback
Mobile sports betting has been accepted in 30 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, while Missouri will launch at some point this year. However, legislators have been much slower to warm to iGaming, with only seven states currently licensing and regulating the market, including:
The trepidation regarding online casino gambling is universal, with cannibalization concerns by land-based operators and the unions that staff those properties, as well as the anticipated societal ills associated with problem gambling being the primary roadblocks.
The Cordish Companies, which owns the Live! Casino in Maryland, has been an outspoken opponent of iGaming, despite the fact it would be allowed to obtain an iGaming license in Maryland and most other jurisdictions where it operates land-based casinos.
Cordish representative Mark Stewart said the company only applied for a Pennsylvania license, where iGaming is legal, because it had already been launched before the company began operating in the Keystone State. “So, we got a license,” Stewart said. “We could make a tremendous amount of money on legal iGaming in Maryland. But we are telling you not to do it because it is bad for Maryland, it is bad for us, and it is bad for our team members.”
The rationale is that foot traffic at land-based casinos would diminish significantly due to the convenience of mobile casino gambling, and whatever money the casino operators would make in the virtual gaming market would have to be shared with third-party platform providers, a la Caesars, DraftKings and FanDuel, to name a few.
They believe those revenues would not compensate for the loss of in-person gambling revenue, which could also result in job losses. Whether those forces can prevail again in Maryland is uncertain thus far.
