The Sportsbooks Spent $22 Million and Nebraska Said No to Betting Apps. Betting Apps Were Already on Its Phones.

Editor's note: TrueEdge builds odds tools that include prediction-market prices and earns affiliate commissions from licensed sportsbooks, whose interests were on the losing side here. Our standing position is that states should not criminalise federally registered exchanges. Weigh the conflict.

At midnight on election night, Nebraska's unofficial count had Initiative 440 at 239,331 for and 285,520 against. Its companion, Initiative 441, stood at 241,599 to 283,159. Both had to pass. Neither came close, and legal sports betting in Nebraska stays what it was on Monday: an in-person transaction at one of five racetrack casinos.

Divide the nearly $22.5 million that Tax Relief Nebraska raised by the yes votes on 440 and the campaign paid about $94 for each one.

The better question is what the voters actually got. They rejected a licensed, taxed, geofenced sportsbook market. They did not remove sports wagering from their phones, because the exchanges do not depend on the Nebraska ballot. We think a no vote was entirely within their rights. We also think it bought much less than the winning campaign told them it would.

Money could not fix the pitch

FanDuel and DraftKings each put in about $10.4 million, according to Casino.org; BetMGM and Fanatics contributed on the order of $500,000 apiece. State Treasurer Joey Spellerberg, who campaigned against the measures, called it a "David and Goliath" fight and put the spending gap at 20 to 1. "Voters in Nebraska looked right past that," he said of the promised tax benefit.

The tax benefit was the weak joint. Seventy percent of the proceeds would have gone to property tax credits, the same share casinos pay, and a report commissioned by the campaign itself projected just under $87 million over five years. In a state whose casinos generated more than $52.3 million in gaming tax in 2025 alone, about $17 million a year, before the 70% split, spread across every property owner does not read like relief. Nate Grasz of the Nebraska Family Alliance said "this was never about lowering property taxes," and Sen. Pete Ricketts said voters were "being sold a bill of goods." The opposition also had Tom Osborne: "Putting a sportsbook on every phone will only expose more young people to gambling addiction."

The map tells you who felt the pain the campaign was describing. Douglas County, home to Omaha and next to Iowa's legal apps, voted yes by about 3 points. Dakota and Thurston counties, also on the river, went yes by 15 and 14. Lancaster County, which is Lincoln, voted no by 17. The Lines put it neatly: voters "didn't appear to see the need unless they lived near the river." Border leakage was a real argument, with GeoComply telling lawmakers it blocked 4.5 million attempts from Nebraskans over a year, but it was a real argument for a minority of the electorate.

What stayed on the phone

Flatwater Free Press laid this out in March, long before the vote. Nebraskans could already "put as much money as they want on college basketball games from their phones" through prediction-market products, including those run by DraftKings and FanDuel. Kalshi and Polymarket users had traded more than $97 million on Cornhusker men's basketball that season, though nobody can say how many of them were in Nebraska. As of an August 25 report, the state had neither sued the exchanges nor issued a cease-and-desist. We found no report of that changing, and we did not independently confirm each app's availability in Nebraska on the day of this article.

Now look at FanDuel's position. A company spokesman pointed Flatwater to a plan to stop offering sports prediction markets in states like Nebraska if they legalize sports betting. Read that together with Tuesday's result. FanDuel spent eight figures to replace one Nebraska product with another, lost, and appears to keep the first one. A licensed book would have paid state tax, partnered with a casino and run a server inside Nebraska. An exchange product does none of those things.

The clearest loser may be the in-state casino industry that fronted the coalition. "It's gonna continue to be the Wild West out there," WarHorse's Lynne McNally said around 11 p.m. Lance Morgan of Ho-Chunk and WarHorse told Flatwater in March that companies were "exploiting this loophole and making a bunch of money off Nebraskans with Nebraska not having a say." We reject the loophole framing, because a federally registered exchange is not a loophole. On the money, though, he is right. Nebraska voted to collect nothing from online sports wagering it cannot stop at the ballot box.

The best case for the no vote

The strongest version of the other side goes like this. Availability is not the same as saturation. An exchange without a state-sanctioned license, without casino partners and without years of the kind of acquisition marketing that licensed launches bring is a smaller presence in a household than a FanDuel app with a welcome offer. Voters who dislike gambling are allowed to refuse their government's endorsement of it even if they cannot eliminate it, and they are allowed to deny their state a financial stake in it. Mike Sciandra of the Nebraska Council on Problem Gambling told Flatwater there is "no discernible difference" in addiction risk between the two products, which does not argue for adding a second channel.

That argument is serious, and for families worried about this it is sufficient. Its limit is that it describes a protection Nebraska did not obtain. McNally argued on election night that without the measures there is no regulation addressing problem gambling in this channel, though she is hardly neutral. The no vote leaves the question with Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who could join the states already fighting the exchanges in court, and that is a fight a state may lose regardless of what its voters prefer. Anyone who voted no to keep betting off a teenager's phone should know that the vote did not settle that question.

A cheap market got this one wrong

One small note for readers of prices. On October 28, Covers reported Kalshi at 69% and 68% for passage of the two measures, and also reported that those prices rested on only a few thousand dollars of volume. This publication repeated those prices on Tuesday without the volume caveat, and we should have included it. A thin 69% is closer to an opinion than to a market, and it was wrong.

What happens next is unclear. The campaign's sponsor, Jordan McGrain, called the midnight picture "pretty clear." Nobody we read has said whether the operators try the Legislature again or walk away, and given the bill they just paid, walking away is rational. These totals are unofficial and will move as the count finalizes. Nobody we read expects the result to change.

Gambling involves risk. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER.