Lobbying efforts underway in Washington, D.C. to legalize online gambling

Charlotte Capewell

16 June 2026 at 8:04am UTC-4

Source: Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

The legalization of igaming in Washington, D.C. has emerged as a significant talking point in the city’s 2026 election cycle, with lobbying efforts rising from various pro-gambling groups.

Mailers have been arriving in residents’ letterboxes supporting the reelection of Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker, Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen, At-Large Council member Doni Crawford, and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson.

Article continues below ad

These promotional deliveries have come from American Future, a pro-gambling super PAC primarily funded by the gaming industry, which, according to Notus, cost the PAC US$417,000.

Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder introduced legislation in March that would pave the way for the regulation of online gambling in the Capitol.

The bill, titled the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026, was introduced to the Office of the Secretary and has since been referred to the Committee on Human Services, where a public hearing was held in May.

Article continues below ad

The Sports Betting Alliance, which comprises operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel, has reportedly spent US$41,000 a month on local law firms to lobby for the passage of the bill. That, coupled with American Future’s involvement, has left some with conflicting feelings.

Felder argued that money spent on offshore gambling would be retained by the Capitol if the market were regulated, while At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson said during the public hearing that the bill would only fund gambling addictions.

So far, the bill hasn’t advanced further through the legislature since May 4.

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.

View Charlotte Capewell's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Campaign mailers put gambling policy into the 2026 cycle

Washington, D.C.’s debate over legal online gambling has moved beyond a narrow regulatory question and into local electoral politics. The arrival of pro-gambling campaign mailers supporting several council members signals that industry-aligned groups see the 2026 election cycle as a useful pressure point for a bill that has not advanced since spring.

The legislation, the Internet Gaming and Consumer Protection Act of 2026, was introduced by Ward 7 Council member Wendell Felder in March and referred to the Committee on Human Services, where lawmakers held a public hearing in May. Its premise is familiar across the U.S. gambling sector: Residents are already wagering online, some of it through offshore or otherwise unregulated channels, and a legal framework could bring that activity under local oversight while generating tax revenue.

But the political mechanics around the bill have become part of the story. American Future, a pro-gambling super PAC funded largely by the gaming industry, has spent heavily on mailers backing Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, At-Large Council member Doni Crawford, Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker and Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen. The Sports Betting Alliance, whose members include DraftKings and FanDuel, has also retained local lobbying help to promote the measure. That combination has raised questions about how much of the push reflects consumer-protection policy and how much reflects a commercial effort to open a new market.

A city with a complicated sports betting legacy

The online casino debate lands in a jurisdiction that already has a contentious history with digital wagering. Washington’s sports betting rollout was criticized for limited competition, underwhelming performance and questions about whether the city was maximizing revenue. That background shapes how council members, advocates and operators are now framing igaming.

For supporters, the case is straightforward: If residents are gambling online anyway, the District should capture revenue, impose safeguards and push illegal operators out of the market. That argument is similar to enforcement messages from regulators in other states, including Michigan, where the gaming regulator has emphasized crackdowns on offshore and illegal operators. The Michigan Gaming Control Board recently highlighted its work against illegal sites at a national regulators conference, describing cease-and-desist orders, interagency cooperation and public education as tools to protect consumers and licensed businesses. Its approach, covered in a report on Michigan’s illegal gaming enforcement strategy, provides a model for the kind of regulatory capacity Washington would need if it legalized online casino gambling.

Opponents and skeptics point to a different lesson from sports betting: Legalization alone does not guarantee a well-run market. Tax structures, licensing rules, responsible gambling funding, vendor selection and enforcement all determine whether a program serves the public interest or mainly benefits operators. At the May hearing, At-Large Council member Christina Henderson questioned whether the bill would meaningfully address harm or simply create more gambling activity and then use proceeds to fund treatment.

States keep moving, but not in one direction

The District is considering igaming while states continue to redraw the boundaries of legal betting. Sports wagering has expanded widely since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door in 2018, and online sports betting now provides a political and technical template for other products. Yet lawmakers have moved more cautiously on online casino games, which tend to generate higher engagement, higher revenue and deeper responsible-gambling concerns than sports betting.

Hawaii’s recent legislative push illustrates the continuing momentum behind online wagering, even in states with little or no casino infrastructure. In that case, lawmakers advanced a mobile-only sports betting and fantasy sports framework with license fees, a tax on operator profits and a problem gambling fund. The state’s path toward becoming another sports betting jurisdiction, detailed in coverage of Hawaii’s move to legalize online sports betting, shows how online-first models have become more politically viable in markets without land-based casinos.

Washington, D.C., is considering a broader product. Online casino gambling can include slots, table games and live dealer products, not just sports wagers. That difference matters. Operators generally see igaming as a more lucrative market than sports betting, while public health advocates view it as more likely to produce round-the-clock gambling exposure. For council members, the stakes include not only revenue but also whether the District can design a framework that avoids repeating the problems seen in rushed or politically constrained gambling rollouts elsewhere.

Prediction markets add pressure to the regulatory debate

The District debate is unfolding as another fast-growing sector, prediction markets, tests the line between federally regulated financial products and state-controlled gambling. Kalshi, one of the most visible platforms in that space, has opened a Washington, D.C., office to expand its federal and state policy engagement. The move, described in coverage of Kalshi’s new Washington office and lobbying strategy, reflects the growing importance of direct government relations as regulators scrutinize contracts tied to sports, politics and other real-world events.

Kalshi’s legal position differs from that of casino and sportsbook operators. It argues that its event contracts fall under federal commodities regulation rather than state gambling law. Several states disagree, particularly when contracts resemble sports bets. Courts have produced mixed early results, with some decisions favoring state regulators and others giving the company temporary room to operate.

That fight has relevance for Washington’s igaming bill because it underscores a broader point: Digital wagering products are expanding faster than many state and local frameworks. If lawmakers do not define which products are allowed, who may offer them and how they will be policed, operators may seek alternative legal theories or regulatory venues. New York lawmakers have already responded with proposals to license and restrict prediction-market platforms, while Kalshi has increased state lobbying there. Its Albany push, covered in a report on New York efforts to regulate event contracts, shows how states are trying to assert authority before the market becomes harder to control.

Enforcement gaps are becoming a central argument

Supporters of regulated gambling often rely on the enforcement-gap argument: Prohibition does not stop betting, it only pushes consumers toward offshore websites, unlicensed operators or products that fall into legal gray areas. Michigan has made that point through enforcement actions against illegal gambling sites. Washington state has made it through litigation, including a lawsuit by Attorney General Nick Brown accusing Kalshi of violating state gambling law. The complaint seeks to block the company’s operations in a state where most gambling is prohibited outside tribal sports betting. Coverage of the Washington attorney general’s lawsuit against Kalshi highlights how aggressively some states are moving when they believe digital platforms are bypassing local gambling restrictions.

For the District, enforcement is both a selling point and a challenge. A regulated igaming market could require operators to verify age and location, monitor suspicious play, fund problem gambling services and submit to audits. But those protections depend on the District having enough regulatory expertise, technology and legal authority to act against violators. Without that capacity, legalization risks creating a formal market while illegal alternatives continue to compete on fewer restrictions, better odds or easier access.

Revenue, harm and control will decide the bill’s path

The immediate question is whether the bill can regain momentum after stalling in committee. The larger question is what kind of gambling market the District wants. Industry lobbying suggests operators believe Washington, D.C., is worth the political investment, even though it is smaller than major state markets. Its visibility as the nation’s capital also gives the debate symbolic weight.

The council’s decision will likely turn on three issues: whether projected revenue is credible, whether responsible-gambling measures are strong enough and whether lawmakers trust the proposed regulatory structure. Campaign spending may increase awareness of the issue, but it could also harden opposition among members wary of appearing to yield to industry pressure.

That tension is now the backdrop for the legislation. Online gambling advocates are presenting regulation as a way to reclaim offshore spending and protect consumers. Skeptics are warning that more access means more harm, and that tax revenue may not offset social costs. The District’s experience with sports betting, the rise of prediction markets and enforcement battles in other states all point to the same conclusion: The question is no longer whether digital gambling exists. It is who controls it, who profits from it and who bears the risk when the market expands.