1 The letter to the House on iGaming
2 Stakes are too high
3 Are Tomlinsons concerns valid?
4 Letter sets the stage for 2017 At least one Pennsylvania state senator is not excited by the Houses eagerness to move forward on a gaming expansion that includes legalization of PA online casinos. The letter to the House on iGaming Pennsylvania State Senator Robert Tomlinson (R-6th District) recently wrote a letter that urges caution and a measured approach to an omnibus gaming expansion passed on two different occasions by the House. Tomlinson said he would like the state to fix an unconstitutional casino tax on its own, before dealing with other gaming issues. To date, the Senate has not acted on anything other than that tax fix. One of those issues is online gambling (alongside daily fantasy sports). Stakes are too high Tomlinson devoted an entire section of his lengthy letter to online gambling, saying the stakes are too high to get it wrong and assumptions and projections offered to date are deeply flawed. His three main concerns are:
Cannibalization of revenue from PAs 12 existing casinos.
A lack of protection for underage users and problem gamblers.
Revenue projections for online gambling that do not mesh with reality. Of those, cannibalization appears to be Tomlinsons biggest concern. From the letter: Are Tomlinsons concerns valid? According to Online Poker Reports Steve Ruddock, most of his concerns have already been debunked. Thats particularly true of the cannibalization argument for iGaming: Online gambling is understood by much of the gaming industry to help activate relapsed casino patrons or attract users who werent visiting land-based casinos. Letter sets the stage for 2017 Pennsylvanias legislature will tackle gaming provisions including online gambling next year. Tomlinsons letter sets the stage for lawmakers and interests in the state that want to slow down on online gambling or do nothing at all. Meanwhile, proponents will continue to seek to pass language that would regulate online gambling and generate revenue for the state. At this point, its not clear which side will have the upper hand.