Committee debates bill to ban raffles aimed at funding athlete NIL payments; outcome uncertain in committee

Representative Jim Wooten (District 59) told the committee he filed legislation to amend the Charitable Bingo and Raffles Enabling Act to bar raffles that would provide money specifically to fund student athletes under the Arkansas Student Athletic Publicity Rights Act. "This bill simply states it's an act to amend the charitable bingo and raffles enabling act to prohibit raffles to provide funding for student athletes under the Arkansas Student Athletic Publicity Rights Act," Wooten said, framing the measure as a response to growing costs associated with name, image and likeness (NIL) spending.

Wooten argued that NIL and the transfer portal are changing college sports economics and that fundraising targeted at NIL exacerbates those pressures. He cited media coverage and university foundation fundraising levels as background for the proposal and said the measure would not affect high school raffles or other charitable raffles that are unrelated to student‑athlete NIL funding.

Committee members pressed Wooten on specifics. Representative McKenzie asked how banning raffles would reduce high ticket prices and charitable giving thresholds for premium seats; Wooten replied the proposed ban would stop raffles that are used specifically to pay student athletes and that it would not affect other university fundraising. Representative McAlundin asked whether allowing raffles might help ticket affordability; Wooten said the raffles he targets are intended to fund athlete NIL pay and not general university needs.

Representative Tasha raised a constitutional concern, asking whether past constitutional limits on lotteries and similar fundraising would make the bill moot; Wooten said he was not familiar with that constitutional issue and suggested BLR staff could advise. Several members noted universities and foundations had differing stances on related measures—Wooten clarified that his understanding was that university presidents opposed casino involvement in a different bill but not necessarily this measure.

A motion to give the bill a "do pass" recommendation was made. The transcript records the motion to pass and subsequent voice vote activity; later comments in the transcript indicate the sponsor’s bills did not proceed (committee announcement: "your bills failed"). The record in the transcript shows disagreement among members and a mix of questions about the bill’s reach (public vs. private institutions, impact on fundraising, and constitutional limits).