As the gambling industry booms in New Hampshire, some lawmakers are proving wary of imposing any oversight on how casinos disperse their revenue to charities.
Watchdog organizations and some other lawmakers, however, are warning about a lack of accountability in how an expanding amount of money is doled out to charities from an industry that is expected to reach $1 billion in revenue as early as next year. Without some checks and balances in place, the system remains open to abuse, they said.
“Casinos themselves face no meaningful vetting requirements before placing an organization on their charitable gaming calendar and can keep working with the same group year after year with no state review of outcomes,” said Amy Manzelli, President of the Board of Granite Staters for Responsible Gaming. “Neither the state nor the casinos themselves are required to confirm that the money is ever spent for its intended charitable purpose.”
A Monitor investigation published in August found that the Concord Coach Society, a non-profit run by a former New Hampshire House Speaker-turned lobbyist who had advocated on behalf of the gambling industry, received more than a quarter million dollars over the last several years despite having no record of public-facing charitable work during that time.
In the month of July alone – with more than one casino closed – overall revenue at New Hampshire’s betting parlors approached $47 million, up 31% from July of last year, according to state lottery commission reports. About $7.3 million of it was passed on to various state non-profit organizations, also up just over 30%. With new casinos opening partway through last year, year-to-date casino revenue this year through July is up 37% from 2025. Through July of this year, overall revenue was just shy of $300 million.
With large new casinos in the works, including expansions of a casino near Tuscan Village in Salem, the former Aces + Eights in Hampton and another in Nashua, substantial industry growth is expected to continue. New Hampshire casinos along the Massachusetts border are proving so popular that they are putting a dent in the casino industry in the Bay State.
The payouts
Every day they’re open, New Hampshire’s casinos partner with two charities, who each receive a cut of the gambling revenue. Each charity is limited to ten days of play each calendar year.
To qualify, organizations must have non-profit status with the IRS and be in good standing on the state’s registered charities list for one year. They must declare generally what their charitable mission is. Once the state lottery commission confirms that a non-profit is eligible, casinos have broad latitude to select who they work with and on what days.
As casino revenues boom, the payouts made to charities, as required by state law, do too.
The state’s largest casino, the Nash, broke its own previous record in July, dispersing $2.7 million to various nonprofits, according to a press release. In 2025, less than 20 charities across the state received more than $200,000 from charitable gaming. The Nash gave out six $200,000-plus payouts in July of this year alone. At smaller casinos, the amounts are regularly just a few thousand dollars, and they can be as small as a few hundred.
The oversight commission, reformed by a 2025 law, has been discussing ways to add structure to the way gaming funds go from the betting floor to the ‘big check’ received by a nonprofit.
The group is preparing to endorse a proposal to lower limits on the number of gaming days each charity can benefit from the system. Reducing the cap from ten days to seven means more charities would get the opportunity to participate, and it is widely supported by both casino operators and representatives in the non-profit community as a fair and common-ground change.
But the seven-day rule is measured in scope: it would not change the full discretion casinos have to select the charities they work with or add oversight over how charities spend the money.
Neither lottery officials nor the casinos examined how the Concord Coach Society had allocated its gaming proceeds. This wasn’t an exception – neither is required to do so under state law.
“I was concerned that something like this might happen,” said Rep. Terry Spahr, a Hanover Democrat who sits on the oversight commission. “The public expects a system that is fair, organized, transparent and accountable. There’s a need to figure out some kind of change.”
Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanborton Republican, is the driving force behind the legislation to lower the ten-day cap and also a member of the oversight commission. He has also voiced concern and about the growing size of charity payouts.
In an interview with the Monitor, he said the payouts to the Concord Coach Society “showed there’s a hole in the process,” specifically “in the validation of the charity and its work.”
But lawmakers lack consensus or direction, Lang said, as to how to close that accountability gap.
Currently, charities must show that they have valid nonprofit standing with the state and the IRS to qualify for charitable gaming payouts.
Casinos have full discretion over who they partner with and who, therefore, gets to tap into charitable gaming revenues. While their exact preferences vary, casinos broadly prioritize charities that have been working with them for years. They also say they look for groups with large marketing reach who can advertise the casino to their networks, and organizations in the surrounding geographic area, according to reports provided to the oversight commission.
‘Winners and losers’
Lawmakers have expressed apprehension about the state getting involved in evaluating a charity’s worthiness.
“We’ve discussed in great length in here on the possibility of creating different criteria for how charities are selected, and I think none of us agree on any way of doing that, and I don’t think any of us ever will,” said Sen. Daryl Abbas, a Salem Republican who chairs the commission. “Ultimately, we’re going to be picking winners and losers.”
Putting the onus on the casino operators to evaluate the veracity and worthiness of a charity would face roadblocks, too. It would mean many casinos need to hire more staff to take on the work.
Monitoring how charities apply and spend their gaming revenue, Abbas said, whether it lands on the casino or on the state, “would be a tremendous burden, relies on the state.”
He also questioned the level of public interest in that level of regulation, adding, “when I donate out of my own money to a charity, I give them a check, I hope they use it wisely, but it’s out the door.”
In Spahr’s view, the onus falls to the state, and lawmakers specifically.
“The casinos are there to focus on their main objective, which is a gaming operation, not a grant-making operation,” Spahr said in an interview. “Some things have fallen through the cracks because of that.”
As a representative, he said to the commission, “I’m a fiduciary to the 1.4 million residents for this program that we have here in the state, and so we need to be careful about how that money gets distributed, and we’re not doing a good job at it.”
Broadly, members of the oversight commission acknowledged growing pitfalls of the system: only a fraction of the state’s nonprofits get a chance to participate, and certain charities are getting larger and larger payouts – some of which are a windfall compared to their overall budgets.
The seven-day rule is aimed at addressing those two trends. Fewer days per charity means more groups can participate and that each charity is more likely to only get one weekend – the busiest days at casinos – feeding its takehome.
To Spahr, and others, that change doesn’t go far enough. Specifically, he pointed to a need for more concrete criteria qualifying charities to receive funds and greater auditing after payments go out to ensure money was spent with a charitable purpose
“I think we’re sort of scratching at the surface of what I see is really an elephant in the closet here,” he said. “We’re looking at probably a $75 million more or less charitable gaming operation, and that money going out to charities with very limited criteria… it’s not a healthy model.”
At the oversight commission’s September meeting, its leaders were apprehensive about backing too much new regulation too quickly. Both members of the nonprofit community and the casino operators preferred that lawmakers “walk before you run” when it comes to changing the rules.
Lang agreed that it’s better to “incrementally step into this instead of all at once.” Too many changes too quickly could prove confusing and disruptive to nonprofits.
To Manzelli, of the responsible gaming advocacy group, state laws around charitable gaming need to move faster to keep pace with the exponential growth of the casino market.
“We have a legal system on the books that was written and set up for your traditional mom and pop gambling… you know, bingo nights or lacrosse team fundraisers,” she said. “The charitable gaming industry now is a tens and hundreds of millions of dollars industry. If we’re going to have a legal system set up to have that amount of money flowing to nonprofits, we probably ought to have that part of the system have some oversight.”
“The biggest problem right now,” she said, “is that there’s nothing.”
