FanDuel, DraftKings-backed Super PACs spend millions on New York elections
Super PACs funded by the US sports betting industry have been very active in New York elections this year, indicates a report, with the industry spending close to US$8.3 million on political races.
According to the New York Focus, New York Future, a PAC funded by DraftKings and FanDuel, has spent US$3.5 million alone since the June primaries. This is the second-highest total among PACs in New York’s current election cycle, with Strong and Safe New York, a PAC supporting Republican Bruce Blakeman, leading the rest with US$8.8 million.
The PAC has used most of that money to generate online ads supporting around a dozen Democrats who all have a history of voting in favor of sports betting regulations in the state. The ads accumulated over 14 million impressions across platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube, with most focusing on the cost-of-living crisis with no mention of sports betting.
Sportsbooks have also spent up to US$2 million on PACs supporting New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James. One PAC, NY Families Together, has received close to US$0.5 million in funding from the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), whose members include DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Fanatics and bet365.
At the same time, the association has donated up to US$1.2 million to the Greater Empire State, a PAC supporting Hochul’s re-election. Outside the election cycle, the SBA has also donated over US$2 million since 2023 to lobbying firms to help legalize online gambling in New York.
“I think the target audience for these donations is probably as much the party leaders … as the individual candidates,” Rob Galbraith, an analyst for nonprofit group LittleSis, told New York Focus. “Helping maintain the party’s control, that good deed will hopefully be remembered down the line — and repaid.”
New York has one of the largest sports betting markets in the US; last year, the state recorded a mobile sports wagering handle of US$26.2 billion, with gross gaming revenue generating US$2.6 billion.
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Dig Deeper
Related stories
2026/06/16: Lobbying efforts underway in Washington, D.C. to legalize online gambling
2026/05/22: DraftKings and FanDuel PAC win Alabama primary victories
2026/05/15: Sports betting industry spends over US$10M backing Georgia pro-gambling candidates
2026/10/13: Most Americans oppose betting on elections: Reuters/Ipsos poll
2026/06/16: Lobbying efforts underway in Washington, D.C. to legalize online gambling
2026/05/22: DraftKings and FanDuel PAC win Alabama primary victories
2026/05/15: Sports betting industry spends over US$10M backing Georgia pro-gambling candidates
2026/10/13: Most Americans oppose betting on elections: Reuters/Ipsos poll
The Backstory
Sportsbooks shift from lobbying to election infrastructure
The New York spending detailed in the current article is part of a broader political strategy by major U.S. sportsbook operators: build influence before gambling expansion bills reach a decisive vote. DraftKings, FanDuel and their allies have moved beyond conventional lobbying, increasingly funding super PACs and outside groups that can support friendly candidates, defend incumbents and shape voter perceptions without making gambling the subject of the ads.
That approach reflects the industry’s changing needs. In the years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state-by-state sports betting legalization in 2018, operators fought primarily for access to new markets. Now, as the largest states either have legalized sports betting or remain politically difficult, companies are pressing for higher-value opportunities such as online casino gambling, tax changes and more favorable regulatory structures. Those fights are usually decided in state legislatures, where a handful of committee chairs, party leaders or swing votes can determine whether a bill advances.
New York is central to that strategy. It is already one of the country’s largest sports betting markets, with mobile wagers totaling $26.2 billion last year and operators generating $2.6 billion in gross gaming revenue. But the state’s 51% tax rate on mobile sports betting is among the highest in the nation, and online casino gambling remains illegal. For operators, political goodwill in Albany could matter as much as consumer market share.
New York follows a national spending pattern
The same political playbook has surfaced in several states where gambling expansion is either stalled or under active debate. In Alabama, a DraftKings- and FanDuel-backed super PAC became the largest outside spender in the state’s Republican primary cycle, spending more than $9.3 million to support 17 candidates. Twelve of those candidates won outright or held strong leads after voting, according to a report on sportsbook-backed primary victories in Alabama.
The Alabama spending came after a 2024 effort to legalize sports betting failed, underscoring why operators are targeting elections rather than waiting for the next legislative session. Analysts cited in that report estimated Alabama legalization could generate $283 million annually for gambling operators, while broader U.S. legalization could create more than $15 billion in new revenue. Those numbers make primary contests, even in lower-profile districts, financially significant.
Georgia has seen a similar escalation. After a sports betting bill collapsed in the state House, operator-linked groups committed close to $10 million in independent spending to support pro-legalization candidates across party lines. The spending included Republican and Democratic targets, reflecting an industry calculation that gambling policy is often less ideological than procedural. Winning over legislative leadership, committee figures and candidates in competitive seats can be more important than aligning with one party. The Georgia campaign spending effort also showed how national operators including DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics and bet365 are willing to support parallel political vehicles when market access is at stake.
Ads often avoid the gambling debate
A notable feature of the recent spending is that campaign messaging often does not mention gambling. In New York, ads backed by industry-funded groups focused on cost-of-living concerns while supporting Democrats who had previously voted for sports betting regulation. That strategy mirrors broader super PAC tactics: promote candidates on popular local issues while preserving access for future legislative asks.
The approach has advantages. Sports betting and online casino bills can draw opposition from religious groups, consumer advocates, tribal interests, convenience store operators and anti-gambling organizations. Directly advertising on gambling expansion could mobilize critics. By contrast, ads about affordability, public safety or local investment can help preferred candidates without forcing voters to take a position on gambling policy.
It also allows the industry to build influence across different political environments. In conservative states, operator-backed groups may emphasize low-tax, free-market or anti-illegal-market themes. In Democratic jurisdictions, they may frame legalization as a consumer protection issue or a way to capture revenue now flowing to offshore sites. The underlying objective is consistent: ensure that when gambling bills return, lawmakers with favorable records or open positions remain in office.
That distinction matters in New York because the next major debate may not be whether residents can place sports wagers. They already can. The more consequential fight is whether the state expands into online casino gambling, adjusts tax policy or allows new forms of betting. Those debates are more technical, less visible to voters and more dependent on relationships inside the Capitol.
Washington debate shows the policy stakes
The industry’s political activity in Washington, D.C., illustrates how campaign spending, lobbying and legislative timing can converge. Pro-gambling groups have made online gambling a significant issue in the city’s 2026 election cycle, with mailers supporting several council members and the council chairman. American Future, a pro-gambling super PAC funded largely by gaming interests, spent $417,000 on those efforts, according to a report on online gambling lobbying in Washington, D.C..
At the same time, the Sports Betting Alliance, whose members include DraftKings and FanDuel, has reportedly spent $41,000 a month on local law firms to lobby for passage of the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026. The bill, introduced by Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder, would create a framework for regulated online gambling in the capital. It was referred to the Committee on Human Services after a May hearing but had not advanced further as of the report.
The D.C. case demonstrates why operators value early political positioning. Supporters argue that regulation can redirect money from offshore platforms into a legal market that generates tax revenue and consumer protections. Opponents warn that online casino access could worsen gambling addiction and that promised fiscal benefits may come with social costs. Those competing arguments are likely to reappear in New York if online casino legislation gains momentum.
For lawmakers, the pressure is twofold. Legal markets can produce substantial tax revenue, but expanding gambling also creates political risk. Industry-funded super PACs may help shield supporters from primary or general election threats. Critics, however, can frame that support as evidence that policy is being shaped by operator money rather than public interest.
Public skepticism complicates expansion
The industry’s push comes as public opinion remains uneven. Sports betting has become mainstream in many states, but resistance persists, particularly when gambling moves into new categories or closer to politics. A Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 60% of Americans opposed betting on election results, with opposition spanning party lines. The same poll found 43% opposed betting on professional sports, compared with 29% who supported it, according to a report on public opposition to election betting.
Although election betting and regulated sports betting occupy different legal and political categories, the poll highlights a broader constraint: voters do not uniformly view gambling expansion as benign entertainment. Concerns over addiction, market saturation, youth exposure and the blurring of financial speculation with wagering can spill into debates over online casino legislation or new betting products.
Prediction markets have intensified those concerns. Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket have argued that event contracts serve informational purposes, while regulators and lawmakers have questioned whether some products amount to gambling. Taiwan’s decision to restrict access to Kalshi and Coinbase over suspected election betting violations showed how quickly election-related wagering can become an integrity issue. The action, described in a report on Taiwan’s restrictions on Kalshi and Coinbase, followed earlier moves against Polymarket and came amid wider disputes over whether event contracts should be regulated as gambling or financial products.
For U.S. sportsbook operators, those controversies are not identical to state sports betting campaigns. Still, they shape the political environment. As gambling products become more digital, more immediate and more varied, lawmakers face pressure to draw clearer boundaries. Operators that want favorable outcomes have an incentive to support candidates before those boundaries are written.
The next fight is influence before legislation
The spending in New York, Alabama, Georgia and Washington points to a maturing industry that treats politics as a long-term investment. Market access is no longer secured only through lobbying at the end of a legislative session. It is pursued through candidate support, issue advertising, coalition building and the cultivation of party leaders years before a final vote.
That strategy can be effective because gambling policy is incremental. A failed bill may return the following year with amended tax rates, licensing terms or consumer protections. A supportive committee chair can keep talks alive. A governor or attorney general can shape enforcement priorities. A caucus leader can decide whether a controversial proposal reaches the floor. For companies whose revenue depends on state permission, each political relationship carries potential value.
New York raises the stakes because it is already a proven revenue engine. If operators can influence the state’s next phase of gambling policy, the payoff could exceed what is available in smaller emerging markets. The current spending therefore should be read less as an isolated election intervention than as part of a national campaign to shape the officials who will decide the industry’s next expansion.
