In an interview with Casino Reports, iDEA State Advocacy Director John Pappas exposed fundamental flaws in the methodology and messaging of a recent poll commissioned by the National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG), calling it “deeply misleading” and a dangerous example of push polling.
The NAAiG-commissioned survey questioned 650 registered Maryland voters in September, showed opposition to online gaming increasing dramatically after respondents were presented with what Pappas identifies as loaded and inflammatory language about potential risks, while completely ignoring the consumer protections and benefits that come with regulated markets.
Pappas was particularly critical of the survey’s inflammatory messaging, which included unsupported claims linking online gaming to the opioid crisis and other sensational allegations. “The survey makes unsupported and sensational claims, such as linking online gaming to the opioid crisis and citing unverified ‘social costs’ without context. These kinds of tactics don’t inform voters, they mislead them.”
“Nearly half of respondents had never even heard of iGaming before the survey, and their views were shaped entirely by loaded prompts while ignoring the consumer protections, age verification, and responsible gaming controls that define the legal, regulated market,” Pappas explained. “No mention was made of the billions in tax revenue, jobs, and consumer safeguards created by iGaming in other states.”
He warned about the broader implications of such polling on policy discussions: “Polls like this are dangerous to sound policymaking. They distort public perception, fuel unfounded fears, and ignore the very real fact that unregulated online casino gambling already exists in Maryland today, without any of the oversight, protections, or benefits that legalization would bring.”
As Maryland legislators continue to debate online casino legislation, with Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary introducing HB 17 this year, Pappas emphasized the need for fact-based discussions: “Lawmakers and the public deserve better than advocacy disguised as research. The conversation around iGaming should be grounded in facts, data, and experience from other regulated states, not fear-based messaging.”
