Share 
A new draft law by State Rep. Brian Stewart seeks to tie online casino promotions to land-based casinos, thereby creating an iGaming industry designed to drive traffic to the state’s physical casinos and racinos. This move comes as an incentive to get lawmakers to pass an online casino bill. Notably, while there has been a strong, highly debated push to legalize iGaming in Ohio, it has mostly stagnated over the recent past.
A strategic move to legalize iGaming
The move to tie online casino promotions to land-based casinos comes as a strategic move to get lawmakers to finally legalize online casino gaming. Notably, while online sports betting is legal in Ohio, real money online casino gaming is illegal.
Lawmakers have been trying to legalize online casino gaming over the past year. However, the two bills designed to do that, HB 298 and SB 197, both introduced in 2025, stalled going into 2026 for various reasons. Most notably, Governor Mike DeWine is strongly opposed to the move and even regrets signing the online sports betting law. Moreover, certain hardline conservative lawmakers are strongly opposed to all forms of online betting, even introducing the Save Ohio Sports Act to try to ban mobile sports betting entirely.
By tying online casino promotions to land-based casinos, Rep. Stewart hopes to sweeten the deal enough to get enough lawmakers on the same side. The plan is to require online casino users to redeem their online promotions only at land-based casinos.
This plan would send footfall directly to the venues, thus eliminating fears of “cannibalization” of land-based casinos by online platforms. Indeed, Rep. Stewart argues that his new proposal eliminates internal strife from the start by balancing different interest groups, which could help break the deadlock.
Rep. Stewart outlined his proposal during an International Development and Economic Association panel last week. He insisted on the importance of restricting any future online casinos to the state’s existing brick-and-mortar casinos and racinos. The representative noted that the state’s casinos have already disbursed millions to support the local economy and communities, emphasizing the need to support them. To this end, he insists on tying online casino promotions to physical casinos to drive traffic to the latter.
This bill could elicit just enough support to get to the governor’s desk. Notably, while Gov. DeWine is opposed to legalizing online casinos in Ohio, the midterms are looming, and he may well leave office before the matter is settled. Interestingly, new contenders for the gubernatorial seat have emerged, and Gov. DeWine’s opponent may be in favor of online casinos.
Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, and Don Kissick, the Libertarian nominee, are open to legalizing and expanding online gambling. Notably, Acton insists on heavy consumer safeguards, while Kissick believes that the state should get out of the way. However, Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee, has declined to state his position on the matter.
A huge revenue potential
While estimates vary, Ohio could make around $400 million annually in tax revenue from a future online casino gaming industry. Notably, HB 298, sponsored by Rep. Stewart, proposes a tax rate of 28%, which could yield between $400 and $800 million annually. However, SB 197 has a more aggressive tax rate set at 36% to 40%, which could bring in between $600 million and $1 billion per year.
In contrast, online sports betting in Ohio has generated about $600 million in taxes since going live on January 1, 2023. Overall, Rep. Stewart notes that this is an immediate financial incentive to legalize iGaming.
Indeed, online casinos are generally the biggest contributor of tax revenue when it comes to gambling. For starters, online slots and table games like blackjack have much higher profit margins than sports betting. Additionally, casino games drive slot interest and increased spending among players.
However, while the financial incentive is certainly worth considering, responsible gambling advocates fear that increased spending on online gambling could leave players worse off. Interestingly, the removal of direct online promotions and bonuses, which help incentivize users to play more, could help curb some of the adverse consequences. Notably, 1% of the tax revenue from online gambling would fund state problem gambling and addiction resources.
