A New Hampshire Senate committee has recommended that the state pass Sen. Timothy Lang’s online casino bill with an amendment clarifying operators’ charitable revenue-sharing requirements.
During its Feb. 12 meeting, a Senate Ways and Means Committee report recommended the amended Senate Bill 168 “ought to pass” after a 3-2 vote. Before the committee added the amendment, there was confusion surrounding SB 168’s impact on charitable funding.
However, Lang—the committee’s chair and primary bill sponsor—said the amendment fixes a drafting error in the bill’s text during the Wednesday meeting. He told committee members:
It was never my intention to carve out the charities from revenue… This bill fits the charities back in play.
Amendment spells out charity rev-share requirements
Initially, SB 168 specified that New Hampshire online casino tax revenues would go to the state’s education trust and general funds. It also set aside a portion of iGaming tax revenue to reimburse municipalities for newly created tax exemptions for elderly, disabled, blind, and deaf residents.
Lang’s bill intended to tether online casino licenses to New Hampshire’s retail casinos, which have revenue-sharing agreements with state charities. However, because the bill did not directly reference the revenue-sharing arrangements in its original text, some thought online casinos would negatively impact charity funding.
With Amendment 2025-390s’ addition, the bill explicitly lays out the relationship between retail casinos, online operators, and charity funding.
Under the amendment, the bill becomes:
An Act regulating online gambling and directing net proceeds to the education trust fund, the general fund, charitable organizations, and to reimburse municipalities for elderly, disabled, blind, and deaf tax exemptions.
Further, while the overall tax rate remains 45%, as outlined in the bill’s initial text, distribution of the collected funds will be dispersed as follows:
- 35% to the licensee’s charitable partners
- 65% to the commission for distribution:
- 25% to the education fund
- 25% to the elderly, disabled, blind, and deaf exemption reimbursement fund
- 50% to the general fund
Bill still faces an uphill battle
Although the 3-2 vote resulted in a committee recommendation, the bill’s ultimate success remains uncertain.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Sen. Cindy Rosenwald and Sen. Donovan Fenton voted against the proposed legislation.
In her comments, Rosenwald expressed concerns about gambling addiction and the potential impact on brick-and-mortar casinos—mainly related to hotel and dining fees.
Fenton, likewise, expressed worries about problem gambling and urged his committee peers to “take a step back.”
However, the committee’s vice-chair, Sen. Keith Murphy, said he’d vote yes to better protect residents from playing on unregulated sites and permit personal choice.
This is an activity that already happens. We all know that it already happens. It’s just not prosecuted. And beyond that, I support the right of individuals to do as they choose with their own money.
About the Author
