Even with the changes, passage is far from certain, and a veto from the governor is a real possibility
South Carolina’s long-running casino debate took a new turn this week with an amendment aimed at boosting land conservation funding. State Rep. Bruce Bannister plans to update a casino bill to direct a large share of gambling tax revenue to the South Carolina Conservation Bank, an agency focused on protecting farmland and forests.
Under the proposal, 35% of casino tax revenue would be earmarked for the Conservation Bank. Supporters estimate a casino along Interstate 95 could generate roughly $100 million in annual state tax revenue, which would translate to about $35 million a year for conservation efforts if the project moves forward.
Bannister said the amendment is designed to win over lawmakers who are undecided about casino gambling. He believes tying gaming revenue to conservation could make the bill more appealing to legislators who care deeply about land preservation but remain unsure about gambling expansion.
The broader bill would allow a single casino in the I-95 “Corridor of Shame,” a region marked by high poverty rates. Orangeburg, Dillon, and Marlboro counties would be eligible, with supporters arguing a resort-style casino could bring thousands of jobs and new investment to the area.
Opposition remains strong. Religious groups continue to speak out against legalizing casinos, calling the issue a moral one rather than an economic decision. Gov. Henry McMaster has also voiced skepticism and has previously said he does not support gambling as a tool for economic development.
The Conservation Bank funding would include a specific focus on farmland protection. Half of the casino-derived money sent to the bank would go toward conservation easements that allow farmers to keep working their land while preventing future development.
Bannister expects the amendment to be introduced when the bill reaches the House floor later this month.
