South Carolina’s GOP governor candidates split on gambling, with strong opposition dominating, but some openness to limited casino development along the I-95 corridor.
Four South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidates offered different views on gambling expansion during the first primary debate, even as the issue remained secondary to taxes and affordability.
With Republicans controlling both the legislature and the governor’s office since the 1990s, the eventual GOP nominee is widely expected to become the state’s next governor, giving the winner significant influence over future gambling policy.
All four candidates — Alan Wilson, Josh Kimbrell, Ralph Norman, and Nancy Mace — addressed gambling when prompted. The responses showed a divide between firm opposition and conditional openness.
South Carolina currently allows only a state lottery, with no casinos or legal sports betting. Any expansion of gambling would be a significant policy shift.
Candidates Split on Gambling Expansion
Gambling surfaced when candidates were asked whether they would support or veto expansion, particularly as proposals such as the I-95 casino project continue to circulate.
Norman: Strong Opposition
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman opened the discussion with a firm rejection of casino expansion, framing gambling as a harmful “vice” industry and tying it to broader social risks. He went further, linking casino development to crime and social harm:
“You get child trafficking… sex trafficking… all types of abuse… I’m opposed to it.”
His position was the most forceful on the stage, signaling outright resistance to any casino proposal, including those tied to economic development.
He also pledged not to accept donations from gambling interests and suggested that scrutiny be given to whether other candidates had received such contributions.
Kimbrell: Opposed, but Acknowledged the Economic Opportunities
State Sen. Josh Kimbrell also rejected widespread gambling. Still, he acknowledged potential economic benefits in targeted areas.
“I don’t believe South Carolina should be Atlantic City.”
He also made clear he opposes mobile access to gambling:
“I do not support being able to pull out your phone and go gamble right now.”
However, Kimbrell pointed to the I-95 corridor as a potential exception:
“There’s going to be limited opportunities in certain economically disadvantaged areas that might benefit from a resort…”
He emphasized that such development would need strict controls. At the same time, he reiterated opposition to broad, statewide expansion.
Wilson: Opposition to Retail Casinos
Attorney General Alan Wilson aligned with Norman in opposing expansion, especially brick-and-mortar casinos, reinforcing a law-and-order perspective.
Wilson also referenced concerns raised by law enforcement and faith leaders. He argued that any economic upside could be outweighed by social costs associated with casinos. He said it would be “detrimental to our state as a whole.”
At the same time, Wilson acknowledged the limitations of enforcement in an online environment. He noted that technologies such as VPNs enable circumvention of restrictions. He said he would be open to a broader discussion around online gambling in light of those challenges, even as he maintains opposition to physical casino expansion.
Mace: Acknowledges Reality, Remains Non-Committal.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace took a different angle, noting that gambling already exists in practice through prediction markets.
“People are already online betting… You can go on to Polymarket or Kalshi… you can bet on anything… You can bet on…who won the debate tonight.”
She did not endorse expansion but said she would review potential legislation and is open to a referendum on gambling, instead of “one person, one say.”
Casino Debate Looms Over 2026 Session
The debate comes amid renewed attention to casino development in South Carolina, particularly a proposed I-95 casino project that would require a constitutional amendment to move forward.
Casino supporters have framed it as an economic boost for historically underinvested areas, bringing jobs and much-needed revenue.
Lawmakers discussed HB 4176 earlier this year, which would establish the framework for a single casino and create a South Carolina Gaming Commission to license, regulate, and oversee it. House leaders also considered an amendment allocating 35% of casino revenue to land conservation efforts. Lawmakers ultimately shelved the proposal earlier this year.
Despite its significance and considerable coverage, the issue received only limited airtime during the debate, highlighting a disconnect between active legislative proposals and campaign priorities.
Notably, candidates did not discuss sports betting during the debate. The state remains one of the handful that have not legalized sports betting. There is one active bill in the legislature, SB 444, but, as in previous sessions, it has not moved.
Polls Show Fluid Race Ahead of Primary
In addition to the four candidates on stage, three other Republicans are running, including Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette.
Early polling shows no clear frontrunner, though Mace, Wilson, and Evette appear to lead in most surveys, with Norman and others trailing.
The next debates will be on April 21 and May 26. The primary elections will be on June 9, and a potential runoff on June 23.
The post South Carolina GOP Governor Candidates Split on Gambling as I-95 Casino Debate Emerges appeared first on Gambling Insider.
