The Sports Betting Industry Just Spent $41 Million Influencing Elections — Here’s What It’s Actually Buying

DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and Bet365 — all members of the Sports Betting Alliance — have collectively contributed $48 million to a super PAC called Win for America, according to a report first published by Axios. The most recent public filing period showed $41 million raised, with an additional $7 million contributed by Bet365 after the reporting window closed. Win for America has already spent more than $20 million on primary elections in six states. More spending is planned across as many as 15 additional states before November. This is the largest coordinated political investment the sports betting industry has ever made.

What Win for America Is Buying

Win for America does not operate like a traditional political action committee focused on specific candidates or bills. It operates through a network of state-level political action committees, directing money into races where the outcome could shape the legislative environment for sports betting over the next several years. The PAC’s current state targets include Texas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The strategic logic behind each is different.

In Texas and Georgia, where sports betting is not yet legal, Win for America is investing in relationships with lawmakers and candidates who would be receptive to legalization. Georgia, in particular, has repeatedly come close — and repeatedly failed — to passing sports betting legislation, often by narrow margins driven by specific political dynamics rather than broad public opposition. Texas is a harder case, but it represents the single largest uncaptured sports betting market in the country, and the industry has obvious incentive to keep building presence there over years rather than election cycles.

In Illinois and Pennsylvania, the math is different. Both states have legal sports betting, but both also have some of the highest effective tax rates on operators in the country. Illinois imposes graduated taxes that top out at over 40 percent of gross gaming revenue. Pennsylvania’s rate exceeds 36 percent. Win for America’s investment in those states appears oriented toward candidates who would resist further tax increases or who would support iGaming expansion as a counterweight to high effective rates on sports wagering. The PAC explicitly targets legislative races where a few seat changes can shift the balance in a committee or on a floor vote.

The Prediction Markets Complication

The largest irony embedded in this story is that the companies funding Win for America are simultaneously building the very products that threaten to undercut their own political argument. DraftKings acquired Railbird Technologies, a CFTC-licensed exchange, and launched DraftKings Predictions. FanDuel launched FanDuel Predicts promo through a partnership with the CME Group. Fanatics has moved in a similar direction. All three companies are now offering event contracts — federally regulated prediction market products — in states where they cannot operate traditional sportsbooks, including California and Texas.

This creates a structural tension that neither the companies nor their PAC spokespeople have fully addressed. Win for America is spending to elect candidates who would pass state-level sports betting legislation. Those same companies are building products that bypass state-level licensing requirements entirely by operating under federal CFTC jurisdiction. If prediction markets succeed as a business line, the urgency of state-level legalization diminishes. If state-level legalization expands, the political cover for prediction markets operating in unlicensed markets becomes more complicated.

What $48 Million Can Actually Do

Political spending at the state level goes further than at the federal level, and $48 million distributed across 15 to 20 state races is a meaningful investment. Primary elections in state legislative races often turn on a few thousand votes. A super PAC with money to spend on advertising, direct mail, and voter contact in a contested state Senate district can materially affect outcomes in a way that federal spending rarely achieves at equivalent dollar amounts.

Win for America’s stated focus on primary elections is notable. Primary voters are a smaller, more engaged, and more ideologically consistent electorate than general election voters. Winning a primary means the candidate you supported arrives in the general election with the party nomination — and in safe legislative seats, winning the primary is often equivalent to winning the seat. By targeting primaries in states where legalization is the goal, the PAC is not just trying to elect friendly incumbents. It is trying to shape who the candidates are in the first place.

The Alabama Warning

Win for America’s efforts have not been without friction. In Alabama, a local PAC called the American Conservative Fund received a $500,000 donation from Win for America after registering in the state in January 2025. The ACF subsequently came under scrutiny for failing to properly file required financial reports with the Alabama secretary of state. The episode is a reminder that the mechanics of state-level political spending involve compliance obligations that vary significantly across jurisdictions, and that money moving through multiple organizational layers introduces the risk of process failures that create public relations problems even if the underlying activity is legal.

Alabama does not have legal sports betting. Win for America’s investment there is speculative in the same way its Texas and Georgia investments are speculative — it is planting seeds for a legalization effort that may take years to mature, if it happens at all. The industry’s willingness to spend on those long-shot states, alongside the high-value targets like New York and Pennsylvania, tells you how much money is ultimately at stake if the national map continues to expand.