Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling And Fundraising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Arkansas Sports Raffle Act after hours of debate over Amendment 84 and NIL
Summary
House Bill 1634 would permit universities and their qualifying nonprofit foundations to run raffles for fundraising — including a provision allowing funds for NIL purposes — under constraints tied to Amendment 84; the committee advanced the bill after extended testimony from university counsel, the attorney general's office and casino interests.
Representatives RJ Hock and Matthew Shepherd introduced House Bill 1634, the "Arkansas Sports Raffle Act," to allow universities and qualifying nonprofit organizations that support them to conduct raffles for fundraising. Shepherd said the bill would enable schools to raise funds for "NIL purposes, scholarships, general support of the institution's athletic team or program, and maintenance and construction of facilities." He told the committee sponsors had revised the bill to include age verification, specify rulemaking authority and otherwise conform to Amendment 84 and existing raffle law.
The session produced sustained debate about constitutional limits in Amendment 84 (the Charitable Bingo and Raffles Enabling Amendment), the reach of the phrase "in any way affiliated with," and whether raffle proceeds may be used to compensate student athletes (name, image and likeness or NIL). Alex Benton of the Attorney General's office and Matthew McCoy, senior associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas, addressed the committee and said the statutory and regulatory framework can be interpreted to permit certain raffle structures administered by qualifying nonprofit organizations; both emphasized that any application to NIL will be fact‑specific and assessed by institutions and regulators on a case‑by‑case basis.
Carlton Saffa of Saracen Casino testified that his company supported a raffle pathway but warned that the NIL language could present constitutional risk; he recommended removing specific NIL references and relying on general‑purpose language so institutions could achieve the same financial flexibility without creating litigation risk. Committee members discussed whether to amend Amendment 84 itself but said the committee's approach was to draft legislation that fits within the existing constitutional language and the Department of Finance and Administration's rulemaking authority.
After questions, motions for immediate consideration and a do‑pass motion were offered by Senator Mark Johnson and seconded by Senator Justin Boyd. The committee approved immediate consideration and later voted to report the bill favorably; a roll call recorded several aye and no votes in committee and the bill was advanced.
