CLEVELAND — After decades of pushback from lawmakers in Columbus on gambling, the people of Ohio voted in 2009 to change the state constitution, clearing the way for four casinos to be built in Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo and Cincinnati. A selling point of what was then known as Issue 3 was the tax revenue it would generate for communities across the state, with 90% of those funds going to the state’s 88 counties, school districts and the casinos’ host cities.

The state of Ohio was pretty much left out of the mix, something newly elected Governor John Kasich tried to fix in 2011 when he got into a fight with the casinos over new taxes and fees. It was a battle that at one point brought construction of the Cleveland casino inside the Higbee Building to a halt.

In June of that year, a deal was reached that cleared the way for the project to move forward, the state to get an additional $110 million over ten years and for the Ohio Lottery to oversee slots-only racinos that would be opened in the state’s seven racetracks.

That would be the extent of gambling expansion for the better part of a decade until the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for legalized sports betting, which Ohio went online with in January of 2023. Online being the operative word because it marked the state’s foray into mobile gambling, sports betting on your phone. Something lawmakers in Columbus now argue is the perfect lead-in to i-Gaming.

“We already have table games, we already have slots, and we already have online gambling. House Bill 298 would simply blend the two and allow virtual slot machines and virtual table games alongside online sports betting,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Asheville).

House Bill 298 is one of two bills the legislature is considering that would clear the way for you to play casino games, slots, roulette, and poker on your phone and, in the process, cut the state in on the tax revenue.

“If we’re looking at our neighboring states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, I think we’re looking anywhere from $300 million to a billion a year,” said State Senator Nathan Manning (R-North Ridgeville), the sponsor of Senate Bill 197.

But there are areas of concern that go along with that, addiction being a major one, fueled by the easy access anytime on your phone. Manning tells News 5 that it is a concern they are addressing by setting weekly wager limits of $500 and a weekly time limit for someone to gamble online at 5 hours. He argues there’s already an estimated $600 million to $2 billion worth of illegal online gambling happening in the state.

“Problem gambling already exists, and we can properly address it through legalizing it and putting in some guardrails on,” Manning said.

A stance Mark Stewart of the National Association Against iGaming takes issue with.

“I would ask, would you do the same with fentanyl? It’s happening illegally anyway; should we just tax it, legalize it and put boundaries on it? No,” said Stewart.

The NAAiG is a group that lists Cleveland’s JACK Entertainment among its members, which is opposed to legalized online gambling, which the group argues will kill business at the state’s casinos and racinos that employ thousands.

“The state’s incentivizing people to just sit on their couches, get on their phones, which are already addictive and play casino games instead of going to the casino, where they support jobs, they support restaurants, they support entertainment venues,” Stewart said.

Both bills limit licenses to those casino and racino owners already operating in Ohio, with the House bill adding a restriction on promotions to help those brick-and-mortar facilities.

“Unlike sports betting, which allowed out of state companies to offer a significant cash promotions on their apps, internet gambling apps under this bill would only be permitted to offer promotions that can be redeemed at existing brick and mortar sites across Ohio such as free bets in person, meals, hotels and other perks at those facilities,” said Rep. Brian Stewart.

“I think you’re going to see the vast majority of existing casino and racino operators are going to be in support of internet gambling and the expansion that we’re talking about,” he said.

Mark Stewart doesn’t see it that way. In addition to his role with NAAiG, he’s an executive vice president with the Cordish Companies, which operates several casinos, including two in Pennsylvania, the Live Casinos in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. They also hold an online gambling license in Pennsylvania.

“Pennsylvania passed iGaming before we had our licenses, and we opposed iGaming there. To protect our investment, we got a license, and the comparison is dramatic,” he said. “To build two casinos, we employ over 3,000 people, and we invested a billion dollars in Pennsylvania. We’re supporting literally thousands of small businesses every day. On the iGaming side, we needed to hire one person, and we invested $500,000. It’s radically different. The benefits for the state are in in-person gaming.”

As the two bills progress through the House and Senate, there is the underlying question over whether the legislature can expand casino gambling online since it wasn’t part of the 2009 amendment clearing the way for it in those four locations.

“That’s a great question,” said Manning, “and the courts are a little bit limited in how they’ve ruled on this, but of the opinions that’ve been ruled on, they basically said that the legislature can expand gambling and we’ve done that in a number of different areas.”

“We’ll see if there’s a challenge. If there is, you know I think that there’s some good case law and arguments to be made that this is perfectly constitutional, but at the end of the day, the courts will make that decision,” he said.

Manning also said he’s talked to Rep. Brian Stewart about his bill. “I think we’re on the same page with a lot of different issues and then maybe a little different on a few others, but I look forward to working with them hand in hand, and hopefully we can come up with a good joint bill here.”

Watching it all is Governor Mike DeWine, who has taken a wait-and-see approach.

“Always a use for the extra revenue, but I think we have to weigh what the consequences of expanding gambling are,” DeWine said.