Last week, Maine Governor Janet Mills allowed a controversial bill to pass, making the state the eighth in the U.S. to have legal online casinos (iGaming). However, the most special part is that the operating rights were given exclusively to the state's four Wabanaki tribes, with a tax rate set at 18%. This is not just about Maine; it's like a stone thrown into a pond, with ripples spreading to other states across the U.S. that have native tribes but have not yet opened online casinos.
The unique allure of the "Maine Model"
What Maine has done can be described as a "tribal exclusive monopoly" model. The bill (LD 1164) explicitly grants the online casino sector exclusively to the Wabanaki Tribal Alliance, just as it previously granted exclusive rights to online sports betting to them. On the state's side, it collects 18% in taxes, expected to bring in nearly $100 million in fiscal revenue over the next decade. For a state government worried about budget deficits, this stable source of tax revenue is quite tempting.
This model has attracted nationwide attention because it directly touches on two sensitive issues: state government fiscal revenue and economic autonomy of native tribes. Governor Mills said she hopes this new revenue will genuinely improve the lives of the Wabanaki people. Think about it, other states with similar situations, like California, New Mexico, and Washington, wouldn't their legislators and governors be tempted? Some policy analyses on the PASA official website also mention that this "rights-for-taxes" model could become a ready-made template for states under financial strain.
A new battleground for tribal sovereignty and state law
The deep reason why the Maine bill succeeded lies in recognizing and utilizing the specific gambling rights granted to native tribes by federal law. This sets a "model" for other states, but it may also ignite new debates. Opposition has already arisen, with the Maine Gambling Control Board warning that excluding commercial casinos could lead to job losses and tax revenues falling short of expectations.
So, how will other states learn from this? Key points to watch might include:
Allocation of gambling rights: Will they copy the "exclusive authorization," or introduce competition from commercial casinos?
Tax rate negotiations: Is an 18% tax rate too high or too low? How will states adjust according to their own situations?
Interest balancing: How to balance the interests of tribes, the power of commercial casino lobbying groups, and public concerns about the proliferation of gambling?
For example, legislators in neighboring states like New York and Virginia are already gearing up to push their own iGaming bills, and they will definitely study the pros and cons of the Maine case closely.
The "ripple effect" is evident, but the storm still exists
It is certain that Maine's action has broken the calm. It has brought the issue of online casino legislation, which had slowed down due to the rapid development of sports betting, back to the legislative tables of various states. Industry consultants predict that by 2026, as more states face budget pressures, similar bills will be treated more seriously.
However, how strong this trend will be is still a question. Each state's political ecology, the power balance of tribes, and public acceptance vary. Smooth sailing like Maine's may encounter stronger commercial resistance elsewhere, or public referendums like those threatened by the National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) in Maine. In short, Maine's story is just the beginning, but how the map of online casinos in the U.S. will ultimately be drawn still depends on a series of political and interest negotiations to come.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders," a gambling industry news channel:https://t.me/pasa_news
Original deep channel for gambling:https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
