Legislation that would bring the first commercial casino to South Carolina is gaining momentum at the State House. Known as the “I-95 Economic and Education Stimulus Act” (House Bill 4176), the proposal is moving toward a full floor debate with a new strategy aimed at swaying skeptical lawmakers: tying gambling profits directly to land preservation and veterans’ welfare.
The bill targets economically distressed “Tier IV” counties along the I-95 corridor—specifically Orangeburg, Marlboro, and Dillon—as the only eligible sites for the state’s first gaming resort. Proponents argue that a high-end casino could transform these rural areas by creating over 1,000 jobs and generating millions in recurring revenue.
A New Formula for Revenue Distribution
A key driver of the bill’s recent progress is an amendment creating a structured “pot” for tax revenues, ensuring that the proceeds from a 15% tax on gaming revenue are diverted to high-priority state interests rather than just the general fund.
Proposed Tax Revenue Breakdown:
| Recipient | Percentage of Revenue | Primary Purpose |
| S.C. Conservation Bank | 35% | Protecting working farmlands and state forests. |
| Veterans’ Trust Fund | 30% | Funding healthcare and support services for veterans. |
| State General Fund | 26% | General state operations and education. |
| Local Counties | 9% | Infrastructure and local government support. |
Supporters believe this distribution model, particularly the significant 35% stake for conservation, will appeal to rural legislators who prioritize environmental protection over gambling expansion.
The Debate: Economic Spark vs. Social Cost
The push for a casino—most notably a $1 billion resort pitched for Santee—is built on the argument that South Carolina is currently “leaking” revenue to neighboring states like North Carolina, where sports betting and tribal casinos are already established.
However, a vocal coalition of faith leaders and community activists remains staunchly opposed. At a recent “Pastor’s Day at the Capitol,” critics argued that the financial gains would be offset by devastating social consequences.
Key Concerns Cited by Opponents:
-
Rising Crime: Worries that gambling hubs attract human trafficking and theft.
-
Mental Health: Documented correlations between casino presence and increased suicide and bankruptcy rates.
-
Targeting the Vulnerable: Concerns that casinos “profit from loss,” preying on individuals in impoverished districts.
Governor Henry McMaster has also maintained a long-standing opposition to the plan, stating that gambling is incompatible with the state’s culture and that there are more sustainable ways to grow the economy.
What’s Next?
The bill is currently on the House calendar and is expected to face intense debate in the coming weeks. While it has cleared committee hurdles, it faces a steep climb in the Senate, where similar gambling expansions have failed in the past. If the bill reaches the Governor’s desk, it may require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to overcome a potential veto.
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
