On April 22, the South Carolina General Assembly saw an event that would have seemed unthinkable just a year ago. At a meeting of the Ways and Means subcommittee, three bills related to legalizing and regulating gambling were taken up at the same time. Interest in the issue reached a record level, but by the end of the day none of the initiatives had moved forward.
The hearing considered proposals to build the state’s first legal casino along Interstate 95 near Santee, to clarify the language regarding so-called skill-based games (games of skill), and to legalize sports betting, including online options. The main drivers behind the push were the need to offset revenue shortfalls amid cuts to income taxes and active lobbying by Wallace Cheeves, a casino developer and a major Republican donor.
Why the state capital is taking gambling seriously
For a significant share of lawmakers, the main argument for legalization is largely pragmatic. The state is looking for new sources of revenue and economic incentives, especially for economically distressed areas. Against this backdrop, Cheeves’ business activity—personally meeting with officials and promoting the project in the media—has become a political force in its own right.
Supporters of legalization point to a whole range of economic effects:
- job creation and higher employment in the poorest areas of the state;
- tax revenue that could partially make up for budget losses;
- an influx of tourists and investment, especially along the I-95 corridor.
Democratic House member Jerry Govan of Orangeburg noted that the state has long wrestled with the issue, but perceptions are changing. “We live in the South’s ‘Bible Belt,’ and any gambling legislation has always faced resistance. But the state has changed, and along with it, attitudes have changed,” he said. Economist Doug Walker of the College of Charleston backed supporters’ arguments with specific figures: in his estimate, casino revenue could total $70 million to $100 million, and possibly more. At the same time, the scholar said, the data do not support a link between legalizing gambling and rising crime.
Opponents’ moral argument
Opponents of the initiatives framed their opposition around entirely different grounds. Religious leaders and public organizations expressed concern that legalization could fuel addiction and harmful habits among state residents. A representative of the Palmetto Family Council called the hearing “a moment of moral reckoning” and reminded lawmakers: “Scripture is clear: we must not only avoid evil, but also call it out.” Opponents point to risks for vulnerable populations, strain on families and social institutions, and the fact that the promised economic benefits may prove illusory against the backdrop of the real costs of addiction.
Those who oppose the initiatives are especially concerned about online options. They point out that easy access to gambling increases the risk of addiction. In addition, online bookmakers often offer players additional incentives, including free spins no deposit. Such bonuses have become especially popular in Canada, as noted in the information cited above. However, similar promotions have begun to appear in many regions of the United States as well. And they’re spreading fast. All of this makes online gambling even more popular. And regulating it only becomes more difficult.
What came before—and why 2025 became a turning point
As recently as the last legislative session, the only adopted document in any way related to gambling was a law protecting lottery winners’ personal information. An attempt to legalize horse betting narrowly passed the House of Representatives but never reached the Senate floor for debate. And in the session before last, the only “successful” initiative was a bill tightening the ban on certain table games, pushed by Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Republican Bruce Bannister.
The 2025 session looks markedly different. Governor Henry McMaster publicly supported the idea of allowing lottery tickets to be purchased with debit cards. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill to legalize online sports betting. And the emergence of the idea of a Las Vegas–style casino along I-95 has become perhaps the most visible and controversial element of the agenda.
The man behind the Santee project
Wallace Cheeves, a millionaire and developer from the northwestern part of the state, previously took part in launching a Catawba Nation gaming facility in Kings Mountain (North Carolina, near Charlotte). Now he is proposing to build a casino on land he owns in Orangeburg County near Santee. The bill was introduced by Republican Chris Murphy with support from Democratic Senator Brad Hutto. Nearby areas have also shown interest in the project: officials in Marlboro County are considering the possibility of attracting gambling businesses to Bennettsville, where one key intersection records up to 1.5 million vehicles a year.
Cheeves himself insists that his bill is not a personal favor. According to him, after a ten-year “pilot period,” any other developer will be able to operate in the region under the same rules.
Following the April 22 hearing, none of the three bills was brought up for a vote. They are expected to be taken up again at future committee meetings of the House of Representatives.