NC residents bet more than $6 billion in first year of legalized mobile gambling
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — North Carolinians bet around $6.1 billion of their own money in the first year of mobile sports betting legalization.
With an 18% tax on gross wagering revenue, the billions of dollars wagered brought in more than $128 million in estimated tax revenue from gambling applications through February.
'It's absolutely incredible,' said Rep. Zack Hawkins, who was one of the primary sponsors. 'Mainly managed a lot of where the revenue went to help make sure that all the dollars that we knew were coming could go to help best support other areas across the state.'
Per state law, $2 million of sports gambling revenue goes to benefit the Department of Health and Human Services for gambling addiction treatment and education programs.
After sports betting launched in March, DHHS saw a spike in calls to the problem gambling hotline, jumping from 895 in 2023 to nearly 1,300 last year. There was also an 89 call jump from February to March before and after the rollout.
$1 million each year also benefits North Carolina Amateur Sports to help youth sports programs. According to the group's president, they've been awarded more than $700,000, with some of that funding benefitting schools and parks and recreation departments directly impacted by Hurricane Helene.
'They had to completely rebuild everything after they left. To know that the revenue put in place, the revenue sharing that we put in place was able to help, just lets you know that we're doing the right thing,' Hawkins said.
$1 million each year also benefits the North Carolina Youth Outdoor Engagement Commission. Additional funds assist state universities and the new Major Events, Games and Attractions fund.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Under Trump, you can attack a police officer and get a pardon, among other crimes
Ryan Samsel was convicted in court for assaulting police officer Caroline Edwards during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in a traumatic brain injury. Paul Walczak was serving a prison sentence for stealing millions in employee payroll taxes. Todd and Julie Chrisley were convicted of multi-million dollar bank fraud and tax evasion. These felons are among the hundreds who were given pardons by Donald Trump based seemingly on nothing more than being Trump supporters and donors. Walczak's pardon came shortly after his mother attended a million dollar per-person fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. As long as Trump is in office, trial results may have little meaning and consequences for MAGA Republicans who commit criminal acts. Arnie Grieves, Huntersville Taxpayer dollars should never fund something as destructive as abortion. Yet that is precisely what is happening with Planned Parenthood. It reported in its 2023 annual report $699.3 million in government reimbursements and grants. That's almost $2 million per day! I am one of the North Carolinians who are asking our Sens. Thom Tillis and Ted Budd to get our taxpayer funds out of abortion. Save all our tax dollars by removing this from the budget. Let each taxpayer choose. Our family supports the local UCity Women's Center in University City, a pregnancy center that helps all women, regardless of their viewpoints on politics or abortion. That is the way it should be. Jim Quick, Concord As a high school student, I've come to realize how crucial immigrants are to our society. They bring different cultures, ideas and experiences that enrich our communities. In my school, we have friends from various backgrounds, and their perspectives often lead to exciting conversations and projects. Economically, immigrants play a vital role. Many start businesses, creating jobs and helping local economies grow. Their hard work and determination inspire us all, showing us what it means to strive for a better life. Unfortunately, immigrants often face discrimination and negative stereotypes. It's important for us to challenge these misconceptions and promote understanding. We can do this by learning about their stories and contributions. Immigrants are not just newcomers; they are valuable members of our society. By embracing their diversity, we can create a stronger, more united community that benefits everyone. Let's celebrate their contributions together! Joshua Mend, Franklinton Prior to January 2025, the phrase 'people are going to die' was not generally related to any specific circumstance or set of conditions. However, since the 47th inauguration, DOGE, cabinet selections and executive orders, the phrase has become ubiquitous regarding the results from the actions and policies of the 47th Administration and the GOP Congress. David Gilliam, Matthews With the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicting up to five major hurricanes this season, cuts to NOAA and FEMA couldn't come at a worse time. We're already facing droughts and wildfires — and continuing to rely on fossil fuels only worsens these disasters. Clean energy solutions like solar, wind and grid upgrades may require upfront investment, but they reduce long-term climate risks and pay off economically. Every $1 spent on mitigation saves over $6 in recovery. Rather than repeatedly rebuild from climate-related destruction, we should address its root cause. Restoring agency funding and accelerating the transition to clean energy are urgent and practical steps forward. Kim Fanelly, Mint Hill
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Stein is making the conservative case for FEMA
It's a classic Trump-era irony: The president's polarizing voice has triggered a burst of bipartisan agreement. When President Donald Trump floated the notion of scrapping FEMA entirely after Hurricane Helene, it sounded like the start of another bare-knuckle partisan fight. Instead, it sparked a rare consensus: FEMA is flawed, but it's also essential. Right now, the surprisingly high-profile defender of that notion is North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein. And in another ironic twist, the most liberal governor North Carolina has ever elected is sounding . . . conservative. Over the past two weeks, Stein has launched a media blitz to rescue FEMA from its own dysfunction — and from the president's crosshairs. He's appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, penned an op-ed in USA Today, lobbied Republican U.S. Sens. Thom Tillis and Ted Budd and written directly to the Trump administration with proposed reforms. His argument is simple: Disaster response is a core function of the federal government, and it saves money and gets better results if states don't go it alone. 'It's about streamlining and reforming and improving FEMA, not eliminating it,' Stein said in a recent podcast interview with Spectrum News. That may not sound revolutionary, but in today's political climate, it's a noteworthy response. Where many Democrats, like former Gov. Roy Cooper, may have used Trump's comments to raise money or fire up the base, Stein is taking a different tack. He's responding thoughtfully, and with a message that Republicans might actually hear. FEMA makes for a convenient punching bag. After any disaster, emotions are raw as survivors try to make sense of their losses. When calls go to voicemail or a form gets rejected on a technicality, the natural response is anger. Police officers often talk about trying to give people grace because they recognize they're meeting everyone on the worst day of their life. FEMA workers are in the same position but may not always realize it, or be equipped to respond. That doesn't mean FEMA gets a pass, of course, and there were plenty of problems with its response to Hurricane Helene. Red tape kept people waiting for temporary housing. It took multiple calls from elected officials to get FEMA to extend hotel vouchers to keep people from being turned out into a snowstorm. North Carolina's own shortcomings made matters worse. An after-action report from the state's Emergency Management Division showed deep cracks in the response to Helene — unclear communications, insufficient coordination with counties and a lack of planning around debris and housing. FEMA may have failed in some areas, but so did the state. Still, it would've been easy — even expected — for Stein to point fingers or escalate the fight as President Trump continues down the path toward eliminating FEMA. Instead, he's lowering the temperature. Trump's proposal to eliminate FEMA might be a negotiation tactic rather than a policy plan. He's known for throwing rhetorical grenades to draw people to the table. Some see that as bluster, while others see leverage. Either way, if the goal is to force FEMA to improve, there's plenty of common ground. And Stein is proving to be an effective messenger. He's called for FEMA to be faster, more flexible, and less redundant. He wants a single application process, more upfront money for permanent repairs and greater use of block grants to give states more discretion. This isn't the burn-it-down approach of the MAGA right, nor is it a progressive defense of bureaucracy. It's something rarer these days: a sober, statesmanlike argument for targeted federal responsibility and reform. As a conservative, I've long believed in limiting federal power. I've written before that North Carolina should stop waiting on Washington and take control of its own future. So I sympathize with Trump's instinct to scrap FEMA entirely. There's philosophical merit to the idea. The federal government tries to do too much. State governments are more nimble, more accountable. Pushing power down is almost always the right move. But not in every case. President Reagan famously said the nine scariest words in the English language were: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' And yet Reagan also signed the Stafford Act — the law that governs FEMA to this day. That law has real flaws, and some of them are exactly what we're grappling with now. That's another classic Trump-era irony. The liberal governor of North Carolina is defending FEMA with a Reaganesque argument, to preserve a program the Gipper helped create. I still believe in federalism. But on this one, Stein has convinced me. FEMA needs to stay.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
