I voted No on HR 450 because I wasn’t convinced the financial benefit justified expanding legalized gambling in Georgia. While I recognize that many Georgians already participate in online sports betting, I believe the projected revenue is relatively small compared to the state’s overall budget, and I have concerns about increasing gambling without a broader strategy to address addiction and other social harm.
HR 450, sponsored by my predecessor, proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow Georgia voters to decide whether to legalize and regulate mobile sports betting. If approved by voters, sports betting would become legal under rules established by the General Assembly, with tax revenue primarily directed to educational programs such as HOPE Scholarships and Georgia’s Pre-K program. The resolution also dedicated a portion of the first $150 million in annual proceeds to gambling addiction prevention and treatment.
Because the Georgia Constitution currently prohibits most forms of gambling, this proposal required both legislative approval and ratification by Georgia voters before sports betting could become legal.
HR 450:
I don’t have a moral objection to gambling. Adults should generally be free to make their own decisions, and I understand why many people support legalizing sports betting.
Supporters also made some legitimate points. Today, many Georgians who want to place sports bets already do so through offshore websites or by using VPNs to access legal sportsbooks in other states. As a result, Georgia receives none of the tax revenue from that activity. I also appreciate that this proposal included safeguards requiring funding for gambling addiction prevention and treatment. That's something I believe is essential if any betting is legalized in Georgia.
Ultimately, though, I wasn’t persuaded that the benefits outweighed the costs.
The estimated state revenue was roughly $150 million per year. In the context of a state budget approaching $40 billion, that’s a relatively small amount of money to justify expanding legalized gambling.
I was also concerned about where that revenue would go. The bill directed most of the proceeds to HOPE Scholarships and Pre-K, but the HOPE program already has an estimated $2.5 billion surplus. Rather than solving an urgent funding problem such as healthcare access or school lunch programs, this proposal would have added more money to a program that already has substantial reserves while many other state needs remain underfunded.
Legalized gambling inevitably creates winners and losers. While many people gamble responsibly, others develop serious addictions that can affect their finances, families, and mental health. Although I appreciate that the bill included funding for addiction services, I wasn’t convinced the projected revenue justified expanding gambling given those risks.
