DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics Form $43M Super PAC to Fight Sports Betting Reform Bills
DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics have pooled $43 million into a new super PAC called Win For America, which is targeting state legislative races across the country in an effort to block stricter sports betting regulations. The effort, first reported by WBUR, represents one of the most aggressive political spending campaigns the online sports betting industry has mounted since the Supreme Court struck down the federal sports betting ban in 2018.
DraftKings contributed $19.5 million to the super PAC, nearly half its total funding, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The group has operated by funneling money into smaller, state-specific PACs with names designed for different political audiences, which critics say makes it harder to trace who is funding negative advertising campaigns in local primary races. So far, the PACs have spent money in at least 11 states over the past several months.
Massachusetts as Ground Zero
The immediate flashpoint is Massachusetts, where state Senator John Keenan has introduced what he calls the Bettor Health Act. The bill would restrict sportsbook advertising, more than double the tax rate on sportsbook revenues, and ban so-called proposition bets, which are wagers on individual player performances and micro-events within games like the speed of the next pitch. Keenan publicly apologized last year for his 2022 vote to legalize sports betting in Massachusetts and filed the legislation as a reform effort.
WBUR found that DraftKings executives and their family members contributed $17,750 to re-elect House Speaker Ronald Mariano and $19,800 to state Representative Aaron Michlewitz, chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, during a recent fundraising period. DraftKings is headquartered in Boston. The company declined to comment to WBUR about the super PAC’s activity or the political donations.
For the Bettor Health Act to advance, it must pass through both chambers of the Massachusetts legislature. Securing a House vote requires the support of both Mariano and Michlewitz, making their positions on the legislation particularly consequential. The legislative session in Massachusetts ends in July, meaning the bill faces a tight timeline.
A Pattern Across Multiple States
Massachusetts is not an isolated case. In nearly a dozen states, lawmakers who originally voted to legalize sports betting are now introducing reform legislation, often citing concern about advertising volume, the growth of proposition bets, and problem gambling rates. Colorado came close to passing a sweeping reform package in March that would have restricted deposit frequency and banned all proposition bets, but the prop bet ban was stripped from the bill before it passed the Senate. A similar bill in Louisiana died in committee over concerns about lost tax revenue.
The sports betting industry’s political spending reflects a calculated decision that the legislative environment is shifting and that proactive engagement in statehouse races is preferable to reacting to reform bills after they pass. DraftKings CEO Jason Robins acknowledged the strategy publicly, telling reporters the company formed the super PAC to try the strategy out for the current election cycle and assess whether to continue it in future years.
For sports bettors in Massachusetts, the outcome of the Bettor Health Act debate could directly affect the types of wagers available on their preferred platforms. A ban on proposition bets would remove one of the most popular bet types at sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel, affecting same-game parlays and player prop markets that have driven significant betting volume since legalization. The debate also raises broader questions about how states calibrate the tradeoff between tax revenue, consumer access, and harm reduction as the legalized sports betting market matures.
