Campaign funded by out-of-state gambling companies would result in Nebraskans losing more money to online gambling than they would receive in tax relief, caught lying to a voter on video.
Nebraska Family Alliance (NFA) is raising new concerns about the campaign promoting a pair of ballot initiatives under the name “Tax Relief Nebraska” that seek to legalize 24/7 online sports betting.
“A clear look at the messaging, tactics, and numbers behind “Tax Relief Nebraska” shows it is perhaps the most deceptive ballot initiative campaign in the history of Nebraska politics,” said Nate Grasz, Executive Director of NFA.
“To tell voters this is about tax relief, when the proposal is actually a major expansion of online gambling financed by out-of-state gambling companies—whose own estimates show less than a quarter of one percent in property tax relief—is a complete sham and raises serious questions about election integrity.”
The “Tax Relief Nebraska” campaign touts a projected $87 million in state revenue over five years from online sports betting. What they don’t advertise is that, with a 20% tax on gross gaming revenue, their own projections imply Nebraskans must lose roughly $435 million to online sportsbooks over that same time period, and, with only $61 million ultimately finding its way to property tax relief, and a property tax burden over $5 billion annually and $25 billion over five years, this would offset Nebraskans’ property taxes by less than 1%.
The campaign’s own projections show their proposal depends on Nebraskans losing hundreds of millions of dollars to out-of-state gambling corporations, resulting in Nebraska families losing far more money to online gambling than they would ever receive in tax relief.
“This is not a plan to help Nebraskans retain more of their hard-earned money. This is gambling corporations running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign to push online sports betting, which has been a massive public policy failure that hurts families and puts taxpayers in a worse financial position, and the evidence is clear enough to say so,” Grasz added.
Concerns Over Campaign Messaging and Voter Outreach
Petition circulators are reportedly approaching voters with vague language about property tax relief, asking whether they support lowering property taxes in Nebraska, and urging them to sign “the property tax relief petition,” while reportedly making misleading and false statements.
This may be especially misleading to voters since other property tax-related initiatives have also been in circulation.
NFA has received concerns from voters alleging that some petition interactions have contained misleading and materially false statements about the initiatives, including claims that online sports betting is already legal in Nebraska and that their petitions do not legalize it. Such statements would misrepresent both current Nebraska law and the purpose of the initiative.
What the Campaign’s Own Numbers Show
Supporters estimate that online sports betting would generate approximately $87 million in tax revenue over five years, with roughly 70 percent, or $61 million, going to property tax relief. That sounds significant as an isolated figure, but not when placed in its proper context.
According to the campaign’s own projections, over the next five years online sports betting would generate on average:
-
- Approximately $17 million annually in state tax revenue
- Approximately $12 million annually for property tax relief
- Just 0.2 percent of Nebraska’s roughly $5 billion annual property tax burden
But because the state would tax sportsbook profits, the campaign’s own projections imply that to generate the promised revenue, Nebraskans would lose approximately $87 million each year and $435 million over five years to online sportsbooks.
In other words:
-
- Nebraskans would lose about $87 million annually.
- The state would collect about $17 million in taxes annually.
- Property owners would receive about $12 million in tax relief annually.
This means that for every $1 returned in property tax relief, Nebraskans would lose roughly $7 to online gambling.
Those figures also do not account for the broader economic and social costs of online sports betting, including reduced household spending and savings, money diverted away from local businesses, increased addiction and financial problems, and greater demand for social services.
Out-of-State Corporate Funding
The campaign supporting the initiatives has been funded almost entirely by national gambling corporations, including DraftKings, FanDuel, and other sportsbook operators, who have already contributed over $7 million to influence an election in Nebraska.
These companies, headquartered in states like New York and Massachusetts, have a direct financial interest in expanding sports betting markets while bearing none of the responsibility for the costs that would be imposed on Nebraska families, businesses, and student-athletes.
Meanwhile, leaders from Nebraska, including Tom Osborne and State Auditor Mike Foley, warned in a letter to lawmakers last year that online sports betting would turn every cell phone and tablet into a gambling device, hurt kids and families, and take millions of dollars out of Nebraska’s economy and away from Nebraska businesses.
Broader Economic and Social Costs
Studies continue to show that the legalization of online sports betting has led to significant increases in social costs, including addiction, bankruptcy, domestic violence, family instability, underage gambling, threats to student-athletes, and increased social services.
These costs are not paid for by gambling operators, but by families and taxpayers, including those who never gamble themselves.
Even Dave Ramsey, a nationally recognized personal finance expert, recently warned that sports gambling is “destroying a generation of young men,” and referred to FanDuel as “a portal to hell” and DraftKings as “kings of their own pocket book.”
Growing Concerns in Other States
While proponents argue “people are doing it already,” they fail to acknowledge that the legalization of online sports betting dramatically increases its availability, acceptance, and advertising, leading to a significant increase in the number of people gambling and losing.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle in states that have legalized online sports betting have recently expressed regret, citing the social and economic impacts of allowing 24/7 online gambling, aggressive advertising, and the ease of access through mobile devices.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine went so far as to call signing a bill to legalize online sports betting his “biggest mistake” in seven years as Governor.
Petition Signature Removal
Nebraska voters deserve the full truth, especially on measures that affect families, finances, and the next generation. Voters should understand exactly what the “Tax Relief Nebraska” initiatives do, and what they do not do, before signing or supporting them.
Individuals who have signed a petition and wish to remove their signature may do so, and should contact their county election office or the Nebraska Secretary of State’s office for additional information on how to remove their signature.
NFA remains committed to protecting Nebraska families, children, and student-athletes from the harms of online gambling and will continue working to ensure voters receive truthful information at the ballot box.
“Nebraska’s future will not be built on getting our kids hooked on gambling, enriching billion-dollar out-of-state corporations, and asking Nebraska families to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for pennies in tax relief. We should be strengthening families, protecting children, and building an economy that creates wealth, not one that depends on Nebraska families losing it,” Grasz said.
ARE YOU PART OF OUR NETWORK?
Subscribe to our email network to receive prayer and policy reports and occasional Action Alerts.
Text subscribers will receive our most urgent prayer requests when critical votes are being taken at the State Capitol, when our team members are testifying before committee hearings, and when we need people to take action and contact their elected representatives.
