At a recent Louisiana Senate judiciary committee meeting focused on revenue and fiscal matters, numerous land-based casino operators expressed their support for legalizing online gambling, although The Cordish Companies stood in opposition. Their contradictory stance drew criticism, as the company operates an online casino in Pennsylvania while lobbying against similar expansion in Louisiana.
The Cordish Companies’ resistance to online gaming is not new. With land-based casinos in various states such as Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the company has previously opposed online casino legalization efforts, describing them as detrimental to job creation and economic growth.
Despite Cordish’s opposition, most casino operators are in favor of igaming. Representatives from Boyd Gaming and Caesars Entertainment, which have numerous properties in Louisiana, stated that online gaming complements their businesses by attracting different customers than those who visit physical casinos. Boyd’s government relations head, Ashley Menou Center, argued that online gambling serves to bring in new players without detracting from the brick-and-mortar market.
**Cordish: A Different Perspective on Online Gambling**
Cordish, along with the Louisiana Video Gaming Association (LVGA), voiced a different viewpoint. Mark Stewart, Cordish’s general counsel, termed online casinos a “bad bet” for the state, emphasizing the social costs associated with igaming. He supported his claims by showcasing financial reports revealing declining casino revenues in states with legalized online gambling.
Further, Stewart raised concerns about the negative impacts of online gaming, referring to increased addiction rates and increased calls to Louisiana’s gambling hotline since the introduction of digital sports betting. He criticized the idea that legalizing online gambling could control the black market, claiming other operators advocate for online expansion under the guise of curtailing illegal activities.
**Problems of Legalization and Responsible Gambling**
Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a lobbyist supporting responsible gambling, echoed Stewart’s concerns. She addressed the risks of mixing illegal and legal gambling markets, stressing that gambling addiction affects not only individuals but families and communities as well. Her testimony was aligned with the Campaign for Fairer Gambling.
Stewart disputed reports suggesting that online gambling would limit illegal betting. Instead, he cited studies like one from YieldSec, illustrating that illegal betting remains prevalent, with projections indicating a significant portion of Super Bowl bets were placed illegally.
**The Case for Legalization: Igaming’s Benefits**
Despite Cordish’s objections, proponents like Brandt Iden highlighted the potential economic benefits. As the architect of Michigan’s law legalizing digital gambling, Iden pointed to increased tax revenues that supported vital city services during challenging times.
Alton Ashy from the LVGA, seated with Iden, claimed that legal online gaming could jeopardize traditional gaming forms like video poker. He criticized digital sports betting’s tax structure and suggested that online casino profits would largely leave the state, deterring physical casino investments.
**Contesting Opposition: Industry Perspectives**
John Pappas, representing iDEA Growth, questioned Cordish’s conflicting actions, given their online operations in other states. He suggested that those opposing igaming in Louisiana might actually be interested in entering a legalized market if it materialized.
Pappas highlighted a study from Wyoming that found igaming did not erode traditional gaming markets, but rather complemented them, supporting his argument against the LVGA and Cordish’s claims of cannibalization.
Overall, the debate in Louisiana reflects a broader conversation about balancing economic opportunities with the potential social impacts of online gambling.