Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee advances bill to close 'sweepstakes' gaming loophole amid industry objections
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17–2 to give a favorable report to legislation intended to bar Internet 'sweepstakes' gaming devices from locations that serve alcohol, after law-enforcement witnesses urged clarification and some senators urged more industry input.
The Senate Judiciary Committee moved a bill intended to clarify that Internet "sweepstakes" machines are not lawful at alcohol-serving establishments and reported the measure favorably to the full Senate by a vote of 17–2.
Subcommittee testimony, including from law-enforcement witnesses, told members that some magistrate rulings had created ambiguity about whether certain machines could operate in establishments that sell beer or wine. The subcommittee presentation said the legislation would remove any possible loophole between provisions in Title 12 (general gambling prohibitions) and Title 61 (alcohol licensing).
The subcommittee chair summarized how the devices work: owners sell Internet time, and customers receive sweepstakes entries that can be converted to prizes or cash. Law-enforcement representatives and an attorney from the Attorney General’s office (Bob Cook was cited in committee testimony) told senators some devices confiscated and challenged in magistrate courts have been upheld as illegal gambling devices.
Several senators urged caution about fast-tracking the measure. The senator from Orangeburg argued that owners and other industry stakeholders did not have sufficient opportunity to testify because subcommittee work occurred during the prefile period over the holidays; he asked that the committee carry the bill over to collect more input. Other members said that, while fairness to industry is important, recent seizures and rulings suggest the machines are already unlawful and the bill is a targeted fix to prevent creative workarounds.
The chair put the measure to a committee vote and announced the committee’s favorable report would go to the Senate floor; the chair said the tally was 17 in favor and 2 opposed, and that a minority report was expected from the senator who objected.
The bill’s text and supporting testimony cited state statutory titles (Title 12 and Title 61) and law-enforcement enforcement actions; the committee discussion referenced ongoing and recent magistrate rulings and SLED seizures. The committee did not adopt an expanded, comprehensive regulatory package at this time, instead advancing a narrower statutory fix and leaving broader reform for later consideration.
