Lawmakers are holding hearings this week on a bill that the governor has already promised to block
Public resistance is mounting in South Carolina as lawmakers consider a new measure that could bring legal casino gambling to the state for the first time. The proposal, called the “I-95 Economic and Education Stimulus Act,” aims to allow casinos in three economically struggling counties: Dillon, Marlboro, and Orangeburg. While supporters see this as a chance to boost jobs and investment, the level of pushback—both from lawmakers and the public—raises serious doubts about the bill’s future.
The legislation was recently reviewed by a House Ways and Means subcommittee, but no vote was taken. Instead, the hearing revealed deep divisions. Faith-based organizations, including the Catholic Diocese of Charleston and the South Carolina Baptist Convention, have come out strongly against the bill.
Their main concerns center on the potential for increased gambling addiction and the toll it could take on families, especially in low-income areas. They argue that placing casinos in struggling communities could make existing problems worse.
Several state representatives have also raised philosophical and legal objections. Representative Jordan Pace, for example, voiced concern that expanding gambling could clash with South Carolina’s traditional values and long-standing resistance to most forms of betting. His viewpoint is shared by others in the legislature who question whether casinos are the right solution for economic growth.
Meanwhile, as that’s happening, casino development has private developers lobbying for it. The Santee Development Corporation is proposing a $1 billion resort casino complex off Interstate 95, predicting huge economic rewards: 4,600 new jobs, millions of dollars in taxes, and a deluge of tourists to the region. However, the proposed bill has stringent terms for operators, such as a $500,000 application fee and a minimum of $200 million in local development.
Even with these lofty proposals, Governor Henry McMaster has already expressed his stance: he opposes legalized gambling and believes the state can benefit financially in other ways. Without gubernatorial backing and confronted with ongoing public and political resistance, the destiny of the casino ballot initiative is uncertain at best.
