The Republican candidates for governor in South Carolina showcased varying opinions on the topic of gambling during their initial primary debate. While the discussion on gambling was secondary to issues like taxes and affordability, it highlighted a clear divide among the candidates.
With the GOP holding power in both the legislature and the governor's office since the 1990s, the eventual nominee is anticipated to have a significant impact on the state's gambling regulations.
During the debate, candidates Alan Wilson, Josh Kimbrell, Ralph Norman, and Nancy Mace shared their perspectives on the potential expansion of gambling, particularly in relation to proposals like the I-95 casino project.
Ralph Norman, a U.S. Representative, expressed strong opposition to any form of casino expansion, labeling gambling as a detrimental “vice” and associating it with increased crime and social issues. He firmly stated, “I’m opposed to it,” emphasizing the negative consequences he believes accompany gambling.
State Senator Josh Kimbrell also voiced his disapproval of widespread gambling but acknowledged that certain economically disadvantaged areas might benefit from limited casino development. He explicitly stated, “I don’t believe South Carolina should be Atlantic City,” and expressed his opposition to mobile gambling.
Attorney General Alan Wilson aligned with Norman’s stance against retail casinos, citing concerns from law enforcement and community leaders. He argued that the potential economic benefits of casinos could be overshadowed by their social costs, declaring it “detrimental to our state as a whole.”
In contrast, U.S. Representative Nancy Mace took a more nuanced approach, pointing out that online betting already exists through platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi. She noted, “People are already online betting,” indicating a recognition of the current gambling landscape.
As South Carolina currently only permits a state lottery, any movement toward expanding gambling would represent a significant shift in policy.