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 for five‑year operators (with a $10,000,000 renewal fee), figures AFP presented as the bill’s structure in committee testimony.

Economic analysis presented by Brian Wyman of the Innovation Group projected both gains and losses. Wyman said, "we estimate the iGaming market in Ohio will bring approximately $655,000,000 in new iGaming tax revenue," but warned iGaming could cannibalize land‑based gaming by roughly 16 percent. He estimated the net effect could still leave the state with several hundred million dollars in additional tax receipts but cautioned the change would be accompanied by losses in jobs and local economic activity — "up to 2,979 lost jobs," as his model projected, along with reductions in labor income and gross domestic product.

Horse‑racing industry witnesses urged statutory protections to preserve the race industry’s share of gaming revenue. Frank Frost of the Ohio Harness Horsemen’s Association and Dave Basler of the Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association said the 2013 video‑lottery terminal (VLT) revenue sharing arrangements (which mandate that purses and horsemen receive 9–11% of VLT net win at tracks) should be preserved or extended to any iGaming proceeds. Basler urged the committee to consider amendments that would require a comparable statutory share for horsemen.

Casino labor unions that represent in‑person casino workers warned of direct job losses at brick‑and‑mortar facilities. Lucius Quick, a bartender and union member at Jack Cleveland Casino, described how union wages, benefits and negotiated protections have supported his family and said "I urge you to oppose the legalization of iGaming." Aaron Womack of Unite Here Local 24 presented national union data showing job declines in markets that added iGaming (Detroit, Atlantic City) and cited Innovation Group estimates that legalizing iGaming could result in thousands of lost jobs in Ohio.

Public‑health witnesses warned of higher rates of problem gambling tied to online accessibility. Brianne Dora Shawwal of the National Campaign for Fairer Gambling described international and U.S. research linking mobile gambling to increased addiction and social costs; she cited prevalence increases and told the committee mobile access can create a more addictive product and impose social costs that fall on families and communities.

Opponents also pointed to regulatory and enforcement challenges observed in other states. Mark Stewart of the National Association Against iGaming cited Pennsylvania’s experience, noting regulatory actions against operators for self‑exclusion violations and a rise in calls to problem‑gambling helplines after launch.

Committee members questioned witnesses about projected fiscal offsets and community impacts. Some members pointed to potential tax revenue windfalls; others emphasized local job and supplier impacts and public‑health costs. No committee vote was taken at the conclusion of the hearings; the committee adjourned after multiple witnesses completed testimony.

Why it matters: HB 298 would change the state gaming market, affecting tax revenue, existing casinos and racinos, horse racing purses, local employment tied to in‑person gaming, and public‑health programs addressing problem gambling. Testimony presented sharply different estimates of net fiscal benefit, economic loss, and social cost; sponsors and opponents asked the committee to weigh revenue forecasts against projected job losses and public‑health impacts.