Both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature supported a local-tax provision, but online gambling is still in doubt.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a casino gambling bill 108-70 on Thursday which would expand gambling to the Internet. In a possible attempt to win votes from lawmakers, the bill also proposes reinstating a provisiong in which a casino pay tens of millions of dollars to communities in which they are located.
Some wondered if the local-tax provision on casinos might be a poison pill, though. The Pennsylvnania Supreme Court struck down a similar local-tax on casinos last month.
After passing the bill, the Republican-controlled state House adjourned until November 14. The Pennsyvlania Senate moved on Wednesday night to vote on the bill, because it would not be in session once more until November 16. Senate leaders said they were uncertain whether they would vote on any bills between the 16th and the 30th of November, when the legislative session ends, so it was important to have a pre-election vote.
Senate Votes 46-1 to Approve a Local Tax
The Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the local-tax on casinos. Whether the other provisions of the bill are going to have such widespread support are another matter.
Members return home to campaign for their seats or wait out the election season. When the lame duck session begins again in mid-November, legislators might have to work on other aspects of the bill, but the local city tax appears to be fixed.
Online Gambling Bill Details
The online gambling bill is similar to the one which passed the Pennsylvania House in June 2016, but which later stalled in the Senate. The bill is said to be a bit of an expansion of the earlier bill.
One issue which is addressed is daily fantasy sports. While many argue that daily fantasy sports sites like FanDuel and DraftKings are not gambling, they are only gaming sites in which money changes hands based on the results of sporting events. Many voters see poker and fantasy sports in a similar light, because both contain recognizable skill elements alongside significant elements of chance. These voters are likely to think both should be legal, or both should be illegal.
Casino Host Fee Provision
The casino host fee has been a major local story in Pennsylvania, because the state supreme court took tens of millions of dollars from 10 different Pennsylvania communities with its decision.
Lawmakers are trying to legislate a fix for the casino host fee dilemma, but a compromise was not reached when the session ended on October 27. Whether the current provisions are going to be accepted is a major question mark.
A spokesman for the Mount Airy Casino said that the new tax on casinos would prove to be unconstitutional, too. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the provision was unconstitutional, because it targeted the top ten revenue-generating casinos in the state. Thus, it was discriminatory.
Airport Gambling Provision
The bill allows casino-style gambling in the state’s 6 international airports. The provision is likely to be controversial, because it presents a possible rival to land-based casinos in the state.
Proponents of the airport gambling bill argue that electronic gaming machines (EGMs) in airports are not direct competition, because they target incoming travelers, visitors to the area, and tourists. Few local residents are going to visit the airport to gamble instead of driving to a land-based casino or racino.
Airport gambling also has the advantage of providing tax revenues from out-of-state gamblers, by and large. Like the logic in the competition argument, Pennsylvania residents are more likely to gamble at Pennsylvania casinos and racetracks, so the tax revenues do not dip into the wealth of Pennsylvania’s citizens.
