iGaming bill draws sharply divided testimony on jobs, racing revenue and problem‑gambling risks

The House Finance Committee heard a lengthy second hearing on House Bill 298, the measure that would legalize Internet casino gaming (iGaming) and related online wagering in Ohio. Testimony from industry analysts, agricultural and racing groups, unions, labor and public‑health advocates presented sharply diverging assessments of the bill’s economic and social effects.

Evan Calico, director of state policy at the Ohio Farm Bureau, urged the committee to protect Ohio’s horse racing and fair‑race economies, saying any legalization should preserve the state racing commission and ensure new gaming structures do not undermine brick‑and‑mortar venues. "Any attempt to legalize iGaming... must ensure the viability of our brick and mortar establishments and should propel horse racing in Ohio, not stifle it," Calico said.

Americans for Prosperity’s Donovan O’Neil framed iGaming as an opportunity for tax reform. O’Neil characterized the bill’s tax provisions as a chance to reduce income taxes rather than expand state programs. He said the current draft imposes a 28% flat tax on Internet gambling receipts and includes licensing fees sized at $50,000,000…