The Quiet Lobbying Effort to Legalize Online Casinos in D.C.

The slickly produced mailers urging D.C. voters to reelect Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker, Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen, At-Large Council member Doni Crawford, and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson have landed in mailboxes across the city over the last two weeks.

Without a second look, they could appear to be standard preelection advertisements from incumbents looking for another term in office. But the small print says otherwise: They’re actually from American Future, a political action committee based in Dallas, Texas.

And those mailers for an election more than a thousand miles from American Future’s home base are a small insight into the big money that prominent national companies are dropping into the upcoming election in hopes of pushing the D.C. Council to approve a bill that would legalize, regulate and tax the lucrative world of iGaming — online gambling, in effect.

Supporters of legalizing iGaming include some of the nation’s biggest operators of sports-betting apps, including DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics, which gained access to the city’s sports-betting market in 2024. Last year D.C.’s sports-betting operators — which also include BetMGM, Caesars Sportsbook, and Penn — processed more than 34 million wagers in the city, pulling in $85 million of revenue in the process and directing $19 million back to city coffers.

Their next bet is on iGaming, which is only legal in eight states — New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine.

The operators’ umbrella organization — the Sports Betting Alliance — is spending more than $41,000 a month to pay three prominent local firms, according to disclosure forms filed with the city, to lobby the Council on the iGaming bill. Alongside that, American Future is one part of a $41 million national effort by the sports-betting operators to sway state and local legislative races. The D.C. election mailers cost $417,000.

“D.C. has a bullseye on its back,” says Les Bernal, the national director of Stop Predatory Gambling, an organization that broadly opposes legalized gambling. “The predatory gambling operators are aggressively targeting D.C. because they want to roll it out across the U.S. If they can buy themselves the D.C. Council, that’s a big win for them.”

The move to legalize, regulate, and tax iGaming — online casinos, online poker, and live dealer games — in D.C. was born with Ward 7 Council member Wendell Felder, who introduced a bill in April. During a public hearing on the measure last month, Felder said a study had found that D.C. residents spent some $700 million on unregulated iGaming platforms in 2024 alone.

“Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, this market already exists,” he said. “The question is not whether online gaming happens, it does. The question is whether the District will continue allowing millions of dollars to flow outside of our oversight and outside our economy or whether we will regulate it responsibly, protect consumers, and generate revenue that benefits District residents.”

That benefit would come in the form of an estimated $100 million in annual tax revenue, according to the Sports Betting Alliance.

“As the District grapples with revenue shortfalls, there is no better time to eradicate an illegal market and generate meaningful new tax dollars to support critical public services,” said Michelle MacGregor, vice president with the Sports Betting Alliance, in testimony submitted to the Council.

That could certainly be a compelling argument for many D.C. lawmakers right now, given the challenging state of the city’s economy and struggles they faced in restoring funding for social programs that Mayor Muriel Bowser had to cut in order to close a $1.1 billion budget hole in the upcoming fiscal year. But it has also drawn notes of concern.

“We already have significant issues in terms of gambling,” said At-Large Council member Christina Henderson during a Council discussion last month. “The idea to plug budget holes on the backs of someone’s addiction is problematic to me.”

Felder, who is not up for reelection this cycle, responded: “We can’t pick and choose what we use our moral compass on. One could make the same argument about all the liquor stores and [cannabis] dispensaries.”

Other critics of iGaming said that legalizing it would only supercharge existing challenges they say the city is facing with gambling addiction. Mark LeVota, the executive director of the D.C. Behavioral Health Association, called iGaming a “nonstop, 24-hour digital casino operating directly on a user’s phone: slots, craps, poker, roulette, and more, available at noon as well as at midnight. This constant availability is itself a key driver of addiction.”

The pro-iGaming lobbying effort has been notable, say some lawmakers. But well-heeled opponents of the bill have also jumped in the game. The National Association Against iGaming — created by brick-and-mortar casino operators — has hired two firms to lobby the Council, at a cost of $17,000 a month, according to lobbying disclosures. The Social Gaming Leadership Alliance — which represents makers of “social-plus” games, which are free but include in-game purchases — is spending $7,500 a month on its own lobbyist to oppose provisions of the bill.

The mailers from American Future, though, were unexpected — and some of the lawmakers running for reelection who benefited from them questioned their value.

“If any group thinks sending a mailer translates into a vote, if they have followed my track record they would know that’s not the case,” said Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen. “It seems like they may not be paying attention to my own comments expressing strong skepticism around iGaming.”

A message sent to the email listed on American Future’s website was returned as undeliverable, but representatives of its parent political action committee — Win for America — told Axios in April that it seeks “candidates who will thoughtfully approach regulation.”

Bernal, a longtime critic of legalized gambling, sees it differently. “It’s flexing your muscles. It’s showing off your power,” he said of the election mailers, none of which mention iGaming, but rather tout the incumbents’ work on affordability, housing, education and standing up to President Donald Trump.

Elissa Silverman says she agrees with Bernal. She’s a candidate for an at-large seat on the Council, running in a three-person race that includes Crawford — who was featured in a number of American Future’s mailers.

“This is a stark example of big money special interest trying to manipulate elections,” she said. “The sports-betting industry is placing bets on who they want to win. American Future is trying to put people on the Council who they think will represent their interests.”

According to spending figures obtained by NOTUS, American Future spent almost $300,000 sending out its mailers supporting Crawford’s bid to remain on the Council. That’s more than the amount she raised for her own campaign — $246,000.

Crawford, though, said she doesn’t think the mailers will have much impact on the Council’s consideration of the issue.

“I am confident that the mailers they sent in support of various Council members will have zero impact on what we ultimately decide to do on iGaming,” she said.

As to her own position on iGaming, Crawford said she wants to see a final bill before she makes a decision.

Silverman agreed, saying: “I have to take a look at it, do my due diligence.”