Republican State Rep. David Muradian says legalizing online casinos in Massachusetts would be the “next logical step” for gambling expansion in the Bay State.
Last week, Muradian told PlayUSA‘s Matthew Kredell that he’ll introduce a bill in January 2025 to start the conversation about legalizing Massachusetts online casinos.
Muradian, who also sits on the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) model iGaming legislation committee, told Kredell:
We did casinos, we did sports wagering, we did iLottery. The logical progression is to look at how we can potentially legalize iGaming, especially when our neighboring states of Connecticut and Rhode Island are already doing it.
NCLGS announced in January that it would draft model gaming legislation to assist states in considering legalizing online casinos. Muradian said he volunteered for the NCLGS committee to learn about the issues surrounding iCasino for Massachusetts.
The NCLGS iGaming model legislation will be helpful in crafting legislation in the future, not just for the Commonwealth but for any state looking to grow revenue without going on the backs of tax payers.
NCLGS had intended to share the first draft of its legislative iGaming model in July at its summer meetings. However, the committee pushed the reveal to the council’s December conference in New Orleans.
WynnBet Shutdown May Cost MA iGaming an Ally
As it has in Michigan, Muradian believes Massachusetts’ recent legalization of online lottery could help advance the case for online casinos. According to a PlayiLottery report, Massachusetts will introduce instant win games that function like online slots as part of its online lotto expansion.
As a result, online casino proponents can soon argue Massachusetts already has similar games.
However, iLottery legalization might see the Massachusetts Lottery rally against online casino gaming to protect tax revenues earmarked for early childhood education. And, with Massachusetts planning a December 2025 iLottery launch, addressing online casinos may have to wait until the former is up and running.
Furthermore, WynnBet‘s decision to withdraw from online gambling may mean Encore Boston Harbour, which still hosts a retail sportsbook under the WynnBet brand, becomes an opponent rather than an ally to online efforts.
Typically, retail casinos without an online presence push back against online casino legislation, citing lost revenue, jobs, and increased problem gambling. Some of the fiercest resistance comes from operators that already tried online gambling and didn’t like the results, such as Churchill Downs Inc. (CDI) and Cordish Companies. CDI’s TwinSpires was among the first operators to exit the iGaming and online casino space, while Cordish’s PlayLive! holds only about 2% of the Pennsylvania iGaming market and hasn’t expanded to any other states. If that pattern holds, Wynn Resorts may join the “anti” camp for next year’s efforts.
Whether online casinos cut into retail casino revenues is an unsettled argument, but there’s research backing each side. Nonetheless, retail casinos tend to be cautious, withholding support for online casino expansion.
One bit of good news is that Massachusetts is in a great position to address problem gambling concerns. The state allocates more money to problem gambling support than any other and is actively expanding programming.
The Pitch to Massachusetts Voters: Lower Taxes
As Muradian acknowledged to Kredell, a Republican-led iGaming bill has little chance of passing in Massachusetts’ Democrat-controlled legislature.
However, that reality isn’t stopping him from using his NCLGS learnings to start the conversation. And he’s willing to work with colleagues to devise the legislation.
If there is another bill, I’ll reach out to the sponsor and see if we can work together. Those conversations are probably further down the line. I’ve talked to several colleagues who have interest in it, but I don’t know whether they would want to be chief sponsors or sign on to my bill. I’ll get something filed and try to get as many people on board as I can.
Muradian said he believes Massachusetts will need additional revenue sources in the future. That said, he acknowledged that online casino legislation could still be years out while simultaneously cautioning that taking too long could disadvantage the state.
Our revenues could be in some trouble. So, for me, iGaming is a way to provide an alternative to make sure that when we balance the checkbooks, it’s not on the backs of hardworking tax payers. Anytime we can bring something new to the market for additional revenue instead of raising taxes, it’s something we should consider.
Realistically, the process to pass iGaming could take a few years. That’s OK, as I’m committed to starting the conversation in earnest. But if other states start moving on this, we’ll understand that Massachusetts doesn’t want to be left behind.
About the Author
