The fight over legalizing slot machines in Missouri gas stations and convenience stores is moving from the Capitol into Republican state Senate primaries.
After years of Senate resistance, video lottery backers believe next year could bring a friendlier chamber. But three August primaries could determine how clear that path really is.
The contests involve three of the highest-profile backers of video lottery and candidates who say Missouri should not expand gambling again without voter approval.
In the 8th District in southeast Jackson County. Missouri House Speaker Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit is competing with former state Rep. Dan Stacy of Blue Springs. Patterson, through his campaign committee and associated political action committee Missouri Alliance, is the No. 1 recipient of gambling interests donations since the start of 2025.
The 16th District runs along Interstate 44 from Rolla to Lebanon in south central Missouri. State Rep. Bill Hardwick of Dixon, sponsor of a video lottery bill that passed the House in each of the past two years, is running against state Rep. Don Mayhew of Crocker, former state Rep. Hannah Kelly of Norwood and Phillip Lohmann of Rolla.
The 20th District, which covers rural parts of Greene County plus Barton, Dade and Webster counties is where. State Sen. Curtis Trent of Springfield, who is running to be Senate majority leader, is being challenged by Lori Rook, who has contributed $100,000 to her own campaign and ran third statewide in the primary for state treasurer in 2024.
State Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Springfield Republican who blocked video lottery legislation when he served chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and threatened to filibuster if supporters tried to pass it this year, said this year’s elections will determine whether the video lottery bill passes next year.
“If you want gas station casinos, and you want slot machines in every freaking gas station in this state, then the people that are going to support that are the ones that are elected,” said Hough, who is leaving the Senate this year because of term limits. “If you feel strongly enough that you don’t like these things, you better find out who the candidates are in your area who don’t like them.”
Hardwick is running against three Republicans who either oppose video lottery or are against legalizing it without a public vote.
Kelly took the hardest line against video lottery, saying she would “absolutely filibuster it” and rejecting the argument that gambling revenue should help fund state services.
“Telling me that legalizing those machines is a way to pay our bills is like telling your child to go out and prostitute to pay your light bill,” she said. “It’s wrong. It’s absolutely wrong.”
State Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain View, speaks during Missouri House debate on May 13, 2022 (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).
Mayhew has staked out a middle position. He supported Hardwick’s 2025 bill but voted against this year’s version because it allowed current games to remain in place until regulated video lottery was active. He said lawmakers should first address the unregulated machines already operating, then send any proposal to legalize video lottery to voters.
“My sentiment would be, you break those two things apart and then you put it out there to a vote of the people,” Mayhew said.
Rejecting video lottery while unregulated and untaxed games remain in place is unrealistic, Hardwick said. Missouri already anticipates a budget shortfall in coming years as accumulated savings are exhausted, Hardwick said. And if a measure to replace the income tax with other revenue passes, he said, video lottery could be a way to generate money besides increasing the sales tax.
“There is a little bit of disappointment in people who are begging their fellow legislators for appropriations, who are saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got to fund education more,’” he said. “But I feel like I’m one of the only people who’s offering solutions.”
Hardwick is leading the fundraising battle. His campaign and aligned PAC, Missouri Enterprise Fund, have reported raising $306,000 since the start of 2025, including $190,700 from gambling interests — the fourth-highest total among Missouri political figures.
Kelly’s campaign and aligned PAC have raised about $91,000, while Mayhew has raised $17,520 and has no aligned PAC. Lohmann and Democratic candidate Virginia Staabs have reported minimal fundraising.
Hardwick said he can defend the policy of allowing slot machines under state control and his acceptance of large donations from video lottery backers.
The donations recognize his work to get the bill passed since he became a legislator in 2023, Hardwick said. Voters know that lobbying interests donate to politicians who support their positions, he said.
His position has been consistent, he said.
“I got into it before there were any campaign donations,” Hardwick said. “I was trying to solve the problem then, but as long as you are, you’re making your position known, and then people decide if they want to support you, I think that’s all right. “
Mayhew received donations from video lottery backers back when he supported the bill in 2025.
“I tell everyone who gives me a check, ‘you know, If you think that this is going to buy a vote, well, then you can just keep your money,’” Mayhew said. “And they always say, ‘well, no, that’s just so we can talk to you.’ And I say, well, you can do that for free.”
The money being donated by gambling interests is corrupting the process, Mayhew said.
“There are too many times I can draw a line from a vote to a campaign contribution, and for me that’s disgusting,” he said.
Hardwick will have to answer in debates why he received such large donations and why they came so soon after the session, Kelly said.
“Those questions should be directed to him about how that works for him,” Kelly said. “I genuinely believe that there is a time and a place for things, and VLTs in gas stations aren’t the time or the place.”
Patterson has a massive fundraising advantage in the GOP primary, with $667,000 in his campaign account on March 31 and the PAC aligned with his campaign, Missouri Alliance, held $2.1 million.
Stacy, who does not have a PAC raising money to help him, has raised $31,000 since the start of 2025 and had $10,134 on hand at the end of March. But Stacy won four elections to the Missouri House, the last in 2022, and he’s been busy with personal campaigning in the district for most of the past two years.
Patterson is a prolific fundraiser, bringing in $1.5 million for the two committees since the start of 2025, Missouri Ethics Commission records show. Of that amount $249,900 — one out of every six dollars received by Patterson’s committees — is from gambling interests. The majority of that is linked to video lottery legislation.
His campaign committee has received $14,400 from PACs associated with former House Speaker Steve Tilley, the chief lobbyist for Torch Electronics. The company gave Missouri Alliance $25,000.
Missouri House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Republican from Lee’s Summit, speaks at a March 27 news conference (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).
For several years, Torch has profited from legal uncertainty and low interest from prosecutors to set up thousands of slot machine-like games in convenience stores and other locations.
Patterson’s campaign has accepted $9,600 from PACs funded by J&J Ventures, which has also contributed $85,000 directly and through PACs to Missouri Alliance.
Stacy hasn’t received any gambling interest donations.
Patterson did not return calls or text messages seeking comment for this article.
Stacy said the only way he would consider voting for a video lottery bill is if it was put on a statewide ballot.
Patterson “has received a lot of money from special interests that want to promote things that may or may not be good for the state of Missouri,” Stacy said. “Gambling in general does not typically yield positive things in the state of Missouri.”
The proliferation of games owned by Torch and other operators would make it hard to remove them from retailers, Stacy said.
“I would like to make sure that gambling does not cause any more harm to citizens than absolutely necessary,” Stacy said.
The 8th District is one of two in the state Senate that Democrats hope to flip in the November election.
The winner of the primary will face state Rep. Keri Ingle of Lee’s Summit. Ingle voted against the video lottery bill passed narrowly in the House.
If Patterson wins the primary, Ingle said, she will make an issue of his financial backing from the video lottery promoters.
“Not only was he the No. 1 recipient, but that was also his No. 1 issue,” Ingle said.
Ingle has raised $267,000 since the start of 2025. Her campaign and aligned committee, KERI PAC, have raised $24,500 from gambling interests since the start of 2025. Of that amount, $19,000 is from J&J Ventures and the PACs it supports.
The presence of gambling machines in convenience stores and other locations is a law enforcement issue, Ingle said. The bill passed in the House would have allowed a transition period — essentially a shield against prosecution — until new licensed machines could be installed.
That made her vote against it, she said, while Patterson was working to get votes for it.
Like Stacy, Ingle said she would only consider a bill requiring voter approval if the Senate debates video lottery.
The 20th District is the only Republican primary in Missouri where a key incumbent in the video lottery debate faces a well-funded challenger who opposes any expansion of gambling.
Rook’s campaign seeks to tap into voter resentment of lobbying influence in Jefferson City. In an interview, she said Trent’s contributions from the gambling industry are a prime example of the problem.
“It’s pay to play,” Rook said. “This is the system that’s set up. It’s completely corrupt, and none of it surprises me. They’re investing in these candidates that have done their bidding, and they’re not willing to wager against people like me who are going to come in and say no.”
Trent did not return numerous calls seeking comment for this article.
Sen. Curtis Trent, a Republican from Springfield, introduces a bill in the Senate on Feb. 12, 2024 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
Trent raised $223,000 for his campaign and $347,000 for 417 PAC from the start of 2025 through March 31 . The only large donation requiring immediate reporting since that date was the $50,000 from J&J Ventures on May 19.
That donation brought the total gambling interest donations to 417 PAC to $113,294, with $90,000 from J&J Ventures and the PACs it funds.
Trent’s most recent lengthy public statements about his support for video lottery came when he was speaking during Senate debate on May 7.
He questioned whether a state crackdown on gas station slot machines led by Hanaway could succeed and said he doubts whether the games offered by Torch and other vendors are illegal.
“You have some cities that are passing ordinances against these kinds of devices, which would imply legality,” Trent said. “If it’s already illegal, you don’t pass an ordinance outlawing it or prohibiting it.”
Using law enforcement to shut down the games would be spotty at best, he said.
“It makes a lot of sense for the General Assembly to come in and have some clarification, and to actually create a deliberate framework,” Trent said.
The state does not benefit by paying for public needs with money lost while gambling, Rook said.
“If we’re going to start taxing vices to create revenue streams, why not look at legalizing cocaine or meth?” she said. “That’s where the mentality is here.”
The Democrat in the 20th District, Sean Falconer, has raised about $8,000 so far, with none from gambling interests.
The slot machines currently in place lure people easily addicted to gambling, Falconer said, and the lack of regulation has allowed them to proliferate.
He said he would not support a bill for video lottery.
The money being donated by all sides of the gambling debate shows a deeper problem with politics, he said.
“What I hear over and over again is all so-called politicians are corrupt, and my standard line is why are we not expecting better conduct from our politicians?” he said. “Why, in every other realm of life, do we say that the appearance of this conduct is unacceptable, except in this one?”