To revise the law governing charitable “millionaire party” gambling events that include casino games, in a manner that accomodates charities contracting-out operation of these fundraising events to a “charitable gaming service” that operates them for multiple charities at a single location, one event after another. The bill would establish a licensing regime covering both the charities and the companies that provide the gambling service, which would recognize a system that has evolved in which, on most days of the week, a person can go to a single location to gamble on casino-like games, with the proceeds going to a different charitable organization each day (or during different hours of the same day), less the cost of the contract with the service provider. The state Gaming Control Board has proposed a different regulatory regime that would restrict this practice rather than accommodate it.   Official Text and Analysis.

With the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

To prohibit a charitable organization from also getting a license as "charitable gaming service”.

To revise the law governing charitable “millionaire party” gambling events that include casino games, in a manner that accommodates charities contracting-out operation of these fundraising events to a “charitable gaming service” that operates them for multiple charities at a single location, one event after another. The bill would establish a licensing regime covering both the charities and the companies that provide the gambling service, which would recognize a system that has evolved in which, on most days of the week, a person can go to a single location to gamble on casino-like games, with the proceeds going to a different charitable organization each day (or during different hours of the same day). Among other details the bill would permit charitable organizations to sponsor these events a maximum of 16 days a year, and permit them to be held at horse race tracks. The state Gaming Control Board had proposed a different regulatory regime that would restrict this practice rather than accommodate it.