Maryland’s Watson Makes Case For Legalized iGaming, To Mixed Response

Maryland Sen. Ron Watson presented his bill for legalizing internet casino gaming in his state Wednesday, citing the benefits of a new tax revenue stream while trying to address potential revenue cannibalization concerns at brick-and-mortar casinos.

In a meeting that had roughly an equal amount of proponents and opponents, Watson’s pitch marks the second consecutive year legislators in the Old Line State are trying to get iGaming passed. Watson’s SB 340 is similar to the one he presented last year, but he expressed during questioning from committee members a willingness to add amendments that would alleviate job security concerns at brick-and-mortar casinos in Maryland.

Watson’s bill has a House companion (HB 0017) filed by Del. Vanessa Atterbeary, whose bill will be heard in the lower chamber next month. Should the bills pass through legislature, it would lead to Maryland residents voting yes-or-no on gaming expansion in 2026 as an amendment to the state constitution.

Maryland’s House passed iGaming last year, but the push stalled out in the Senate.

High-profile proponents join Watson

Watson made his presentation roughly four hours into the session flanked by National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) President and West Virginia Del. Shawn Fluharty, former Maryland Del. Darryl Barnes, John Pappas on behalf of the iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA), and Tony Jones, managing partner of the Riverboat on the Potomac Casino.

Knowing cannibalization concerns scuttled his legalization efforts last year, Watson embraced the debate directly this time, pointing out what he called “the fallacy of cannibalization.” The legislator used Pennsylvania’s iGaming revenue figures that showed double-digit, year-over-year growth as an example and called out Cordish Companies for creating a “false narrative” as an opponent while conducting iCasino in the Keystone State.

“What we’re asking for in the state of Maryland is exactly what they’re doing in Pennsylvania today, with Maryland Live! at the helm,” Watson said. “Maybe they want to hold on to a quasi monopoly or are afraid of competition.”

Fluharty, whose efforts led to the legalization of iGaming in West Virginia, followed up on Watson’s estimated $200 million illegal market currently active in Maryland. Fluharty noted he was able to play Cafe Casino on his smartphone while in the statehouse, an unlicensed online casino from which Maryland receives no tax revenue. He added that a regulated market allows a state to go after illegal operators because laws are in place for a licensing process.

Pappas pointed out that iGaming taxed at an “even modest 30 percent” would generate $1.65 billion in new tax revenue over the first five years of legalization. He made the general point that every state with legalized internet casino gaming has seen overall gaming revenue and accompanying tax revenue increase.

Opponents and some skeptics on committee

Cordish representative Mark Stewart noted that it has an online license in Pennsylvania because iGaming pre-dated its entrance into the marketplace. Stewart added Cordish’s iGaming investment in the Keystone State pales in comparison to brick-and-mortar ventures: The company put $500,000 into iGaming versus $900 million into retail casinos.

Opponents seized on the $10 million employee displacement fund in Watson’s bill, calling it a concession that cannibalization will occur. Bobbi Jones, the general manager of Ocean Downs Casino, recalled that 45% of her staff was laid off at Presque Isle Casino in Pennsylvania in part due to iGaming.

Multiple local Chambers of Commerce opposed the bill. They expressed a common theme that a brick-and-mortar casino serves as an anchor to local tourism that can impact small businesses via vendor contracts.

In addition to cannibalization, problem gambling concerns were verbalized by committee members. Sen. Nancy J. King, who voted in favor of legalizing sports betting in Maryland, said she receives calls and emails from constituents regarding those who have suffered financial hardships. She said she “was not convinced that [iGaming] isn’t just another bad decision to put on our people.”