Can my nonprofit use an online raffle platform like a 50/50 sports raffle? And can a paid staff member run the raffle?
Plain-English summary
Section 1051 of title 21 lets eight categories of "qualified organizations" (churches, accredited schools, school student groups and PTAs, fire and police departments, federally tax-exempt nonprofits, and entities under 3A O.S. § 402) run charitable raffles. Two restrictions in the statute caused real-world headaches:
- The qualified organization "shall not hire or contract with" any third party "to conduct a raffle, to sell raffle tickets or to solicit contributions."
- The raffle "shall be conducted by members of the qualified organization without compensation to any member."
Representative Chris Kannady asked whether a sports-team foundation running a 50/50 raffle could (a) use a third-party online platform for tickets, payments, and the random drawing, and (b) have a salaried employee run the raffle.
AG Drummond said yes to both, with two clear conditions:
- Third-party platforms are fine because "conduct" means leadership and control. The platform is a vendor following the nonprofit's instructions: selling tickets the nonprofit set the price for, ending sales when the nonprofit says, and running the random drawing the nonprofit triggered. The nonprofit is conducting the raffle. The platform is a helper.
- Salaried staff can run the raffle, as long as their participation in the raffle work is voluntary and their pay is not tied to running the raffle. So a part-time staffer who takes on the 50/50 raffle as part of their normal foundation duties is fine. A staffer who gets a commission or per-raffle bonus is not.
What this means for you
If you run a sports-team foundation, large nonprofit, or other 501(c)
You can use raffle software (Rallyup, Givebutter, ToucanTech, RaffleReady, etc.) for online ticket sales, payment processing, electronic ticketing, email receipts, and random drawing. Just keep the control structure clear: your staff sets pricing, your staff sets start and end times, your staff triggers the drawing. The platform vendor never "conducts" the raffle.
Document the control structure in your contract with the platform. Avoid contract language that says the vendor will "operate" or "manage" the raffle; use words like "provide tools for," "process payments for," and "facilitate."
Your staff can run the raffle while drawing their normal salary, as long as you do not pay an extra incentive for raffle work. Volunteers stay volunteers. Paid staff stay paid for their general duties, not for the raffle work.
If you run a church, school group, fire department, or PTA raffle
Same rules. You can take payments online, do email tickets, and use a random number generator service. If you pay your administrator a normal salary, that's fine; do not pay them more because the raffle did well.
If you sell raffle software to Oklahoma nonprofits
Your contracts to qualified organizations are lawful as long as your role stays in the "tools and helper" lane. Build your standard SaaS contract around the customer's control: customer sets ticket price, customer chooses raffle duration, customer authorizes the drawing. Avoid bundles that include "raffle management consulting" with no nonprofit control over decisions.
If you are a nonprofit attorney advising on charitable gaming
The opinion is binding on state officials under 74 O.S. § 18b. Two practical safe-harbors:
- Platform vendor: lawful when it processes tickets/payments/drawings under nonprofit control, not when it makes any material raffle decision (start, end, price, prize, recipient list).
- Salaried staffer: lawful when their pay is unconnected to raffle outcomes, not when there's a commission, bonus, or hourly rate booked specifically against raffle work.
The opinion expressly leaves out application to specific facts. If your client has a hybrid arrangement (e.g., the platform vendor recommends pricing or markets the raffle), that's a fact-specific question outside the AG's scope.
If you participate in 50/50 raffles at sporting events
The opinion confirms these raffles are lawful under Oklahoma law. The Thunder Community Foundation, OKC Dodgers Foundation, and similar charity drawings can use third-party platforms to handle the digital side without running afoul of § 1051.
Common questions
Q: Can my church use Rallyup or a similar online platform for a fundraising raffle?
A: Yes, as long as your team controls the raffle (pricing, start, end, drawing). The platform handles the digital plumbing.
Q: Does the platform's automatic random number generator count as the platform "conducting" the raffle?
A: No. The platform is providing a tool. Your team triggers the drawing and remains the decisionmaker.
Q: Can we pay an outside contractor to come run our raffle for an event?
A: No. Hiring a third party to conduct the raffle is exactly what § 1051(A)(4)(b) prohibits. You can hire someone to set up the technology platform; you cannot hire someone to be the person in charge.
Q: Can our nonprofit's executive director run the raffle?
A: Yes, if the ED is taking it on as part of their normal duties at their normal salary. They cannot be paid extra (commission, per-raffle bonus) for running the raffle.
Q: What about a raffle ticket seller who works on commission?
A: That is barred by the statute, which says the raffle must be "conducted by members of the qualified organization without compensation to any member." A commission tied to raffle ticket sales is exactly the kind of compensation the statute prohibits.
Q: Can volunteers be reimbursed for expenses?
A: The opinion does not address this directly, but reasonable expense reimbursement (mileage, supplies) is generally distinct from "compensation" for conducting the raffle. Document the difference clearly.
Q: Can we sell raffle tickets across state lines online?
A: The opinion says nothing in § 1051 limits where raffle tickets can be purchased, but other states' laws may restrict sales to their residents. Research the destination state before opening online sales nationally.
Background and statutory framework
Charitable raffles were illegal in Oklahoma until State Question 705 amended the constitution and the legislature amended § 1051 in 2003 to permit raffles by qualified organizations. The change was prompted by 1995 OK AG 6, which had held that nonprofit "casino nights" violated Oklahoma anti-gambling laws.
Section 1051(A)(4) defines "qualified organization" to include eight categories: churches, accredited schools, student groups, PTAs, fire departments, police departments, federal 501(c) tax-exempt organizations, and entities under 3A O.S. § 402.
The opinion's reasoning on "conduct" leans on Merriam-Webster ("to direct the performance of," "to lead from a position of command") and the Virginia Supreme Court's Turner v. Commonwealth (1983), which held that "conduct" connotes leadership and control, not mere participation. The opinion uses an orchestra analogy: the conductor leads, but the musicians are not conducting the orchestra.
On the compensation issue, the opinion applies the Oklahoma canon that statutes are interpreted to avoid absurd results. Reading "without compensation" to bar all paid employment by the qualified organization would prevent schools (which pay employees), police departments (which pay officers), and fire departments (which pay firefighters) from running raffles with their own staff, a result the legislature plainly did not intend.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4), Charitable raffle authorization and limits
- 26 U.S.C. § 501(c), Federal tax-exempt status (one of the qualified-organization categories)
- 3A O.S.Supp.2018, § 724.5: Online second-chance lottery promotions (background)
Cases:
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 309 S.E.2d 337 (Va. 1983), "conduct" means leadership and control
- Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7, 85 P.3d 841, statutory construction starts with text
- McIntosh v. Watkins, 2019 OK 6, 441 P.3d 1094, interpret to avoid absurd results
- Brassfield v. State, 2024 OK 9, 544 P.3d 938, dictionary as plain meaning source
Source
- Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2024/ag-opinion-2024-7.html
- Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2024/ag_opinion_2024-7.pdf
Original opinion text
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2024-7
The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 240
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
April 26, 2024
Dear Representative Kannady:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask the
following questions:
1. May a qualified organization use a third-party electronic raffle platform or
software to host a raffle online, to include fulfilling ticket orders, processing
payments, and providing a random number generator for raffle entries,
without violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051, or do those undertakings constitute the
conducting of a raffle under the statute?
2. May a salaried employee of a qualified organization conduct a raffle without
violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051 if that employee is not receiving additional
compensation for conducting the raffle?
I.
SUMMARY
A qualified organization may use a third-party electronic raffle platform or software to host a raffle
online, to include fulfilling ticket orders, processing payments, and providing a random number
generator for raffle entries, without violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051. It is this office’s opinion that
the verb form of “conduct” in section 1051 means the person doing the activity is in a leadership
or controlling position. As a result, because the third-party electronic raffle platform or software
provider is simply following the directions of a client, the qualified organization, it is not in a
leadership position. Therefore, it is not violating the limitation on who can “conduct” a raffle
pursuant to Section 1051(A)(4)(b).
Further, it is this office’s opinion that the prohibition on a qualified organization’s member
receiving compensation in 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4)(b) is solely limited to conducting the raffle.
In other words, the member of the qualified organization is permitted to receive compensation
from the qualified organization as long as the member’s participation in conducting the raffle is
voluntary and the member’s compensation is not directly tied to conducting the raffle.
313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • Fax: (405) 521-6246
Representative Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
A.G. Opinion
Page 2
II.
BACKGROUND
With limited exceptions, the purchase of “a lot of chance, whether called a lottery, a raffle, or a
gift enterprise” in exchange for valuable consideration was prohibited by Oklahoma criminal law
until November 9, 2003. 21 O.S.1991, § 1051; CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS—LOTTERIES—
CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, 2003 Okla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 202 (S.B.
837) (West). In response to a 1995 Attorney General Opinion, 1995 OK AG 6, holding that “casino
nights” by non-profit, charitable organizations violated Oklahoma’s anti-gambling laws, the
Legislature amended 21 O.S.1991, § 1051 to permit raffles by qualified organizations. 1 This law
became effective upon the approval of State Question 705 by the voters. 2 Qualified organizations
are defined as:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
a church,
a public or private school accredited by the State Department of Education or
registered by the State Board of Education for purposes of participating in
federal programs,
a student group or organization affiliated with a public or private school
qualified pursuant to division (2) of this subparagraph,
a parent-teacher association or organization affiliated with a public or private
school qualified pursuant to division (2) of this subparagraph,
fire departments,
police departments,
organizations that are exempt from taxation pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (c) of Section 501 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, 26 U.S.C., Section 501(c) et seq., or
an “organization” as such term is defined in paragraph 20 of Section 402 of
Title 3A of the Oklahoma Statutes.
21 O.S. 2021, § 1051(A)(4)(a).
Since the legalization of charitable raffles in Oklahoma, so-called 50/50 raffles have become a
popular method for professional sports teams to raise money for their charitable foundations. 3 A
50/50 raffle is a type of “raffle conducted by a charitable organization whereby moneys collected
by sale of raffle tickets are split evenly between the prize winner or winners and the charitable
organization after the raffle drawing.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 287-A:1 (2000); see also N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 5:8-51.6 (2020); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 4620.22 (2022); and Mont. Admin.
R. 23.16.2610 (2019).
OKLAHOMA SENATE, (Nov. 30, 2024, 12:38 AM), https://oksenate.gov/press-releases/raffles-now-legalnon-profit-organizations#:~:text=Sen.,Gaming%20 and%20illegal%20in%20Oklahoma.
1
2
Id.
See e.g., NBA, https://www.nba.com/thunder/raffle (last visited Apr. 26, 2024); and OKC,
https://www.milb.com/oklahoma-city/community/50-50-raffle (last visited Apr. 26, 2024).
3
Representative Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
A.G. Opinion
Page 3
With the large crowds present at professional sporting events, it makes sense that qualified
organizations associated with professional sports teams, such as the Thunder Community
Foundation, would seek to engage third-party electronic raffle platforms or software providers to
help with the logistics of the raffle. Based on information provided to this office, it is understood
that these third parties typically provide tools for the raffle such as credit card processing,
producing electronic and paper tickets, and e-mailing receipts to participants. Further, they provide
a random number generator to select the winning ticket and analytical support to help the qualified
organization make decisions to maximize ticket sales.
Based on information provided to this office, it is also understood that the qualified organization’s
employees or volunteers are the only persons soliciting the purchase of or selling raffle tickets.
And the personnel of the qualified organization are the ultimate decisionmaker with respect to all
material aspects of the raffle. For example, the qualified organization’s personnel determine when
the raffle starts, when it ends, and the amount it costs to purchase a raffle ticket. Finally, the
qualified organization’s personnel select the winning ticket through initiating a random number
generator provided by these third parties.
III.
DISCUSSION.
A.
The use of a third-party electronic raffle platform or software by a qualified
organization to host a raffle online, to include fulfilling ticket orders, processing
payments, and providing a random number generator for raffle entries does not
violate 21 O.S.2021, § 1051.
Subsection A(4)(b) of 21 O.S.2021, § 1051 states that a qualified “organization shall not hire or
contract with any person or business association, corporation, partnership, limited partnership or
limited liability company to conduct a raffle, to sell raffle tickets or to solicit contributions in
connection with a raffle on behalf of the organization.” The text of the question presented plus the
information provided to this office establishes that the third party is not selling the raffle tickets or
soliciting contributions in connection with the raffle. Therefore, the resolution of the question
depends on what it means to “conduct a raffle.”
“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative
intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of a statute.” Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7,
¶ 10, 85 P.3d 841, 845. “The words of a statute will be given their plain and ordinary meaning
unless it is contrary to the purpose and intent of the statute when considered as a whole.” Welch v.
Crow, 2009 OK 20, ¶ 10, 206 P.3d 599, 603. The Oklahoma Supreme Court “has relied on
dictionary definitions to provide the plain, ordinary meaning of terms.” Brassfield v. State, 2024
OK 9, ¶ 8, 544 P.3d 938, 941.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 4 the verb form of “conduct” as “to direct the performance
of,” “to lead from a position of command,” “to direct or take part in the operation or management
Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “conduct” is not helpful because it defines the noun form of
“conduct.” Conduct, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).
4
Representative Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
A.G. Opinion
Page 4
of,” and “to bring by or as if by leading.” 5 This dictionary definition of “conduct” establishes that
a person must be in a management or leadership position to “conduct” an activity.
The Virginia Supreme Court came to the same conclusion when it was asked to interpret a criminal
statute punishing an individual that “conducts . . . an illegal gambling enterprise, activity or
operation.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 309 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Va. 1983). There, the court rejected
Virginia’s argument that the word “conducts” was broad enough to encompass a person that
“‘engages in’ or ‘participates in’” an illegal gaming enterprise. Id. Instead, the court held that “the
word ‘conduct’ connotes leadership and control. It contemplates the person in charge. It in no way
suggests the role of a mere employee, participant, or helper.” Id. at 339. Thus, an individual that
“conducts” an activity is the person in charge. He or she is not a mere employee, participant, or
helper. One need only think of an orchestra, where there is one conductor directing many
performers.
Based on the information provided to this office, it is understood that the third-party electronic
raffle platform or software provider is not the person in charge. The third-party raffle platform or
software provider simply takes instructions from its customer, the qualified organization. The third
party is, at most, a participant or helper in facilitating the raffle. Therefore, the third-party raffle
platform or software provider is not conducting the raffle.
Accordingly, a qualified organization may use a third-party electronic raffle platform or software
to host a raffle online 6, to include fulfilling ticket orders, processing payments, and providing a
random number generator for raffle entries, without violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051.
B.
A salaried employee of a qualified organization may conduct a raffle without violating
21 O.S.2021, § 1051 as long as that employee’s participation in conducting the raffle
is voluntary and their compensation is not directly tied to conducting the raffle.
Subsection A(4)(b) of 21 O.S.2021, § 1051 also provides that “[a]ny raffle conducted by a qualified
organization shall be conducted by members of the qualified organization without compensation
to any member.” The question presented is essentially whether the statement “without
compensation to any member” prevents the member from receiving a salary from the qualified
organization that is not directly tied to conducting the raffle. The answer to this question is that the
member may receive a salary from the qualified organization as long as the salary is not directly
tied to conducting the raffle and the member is not receiving an incentive for conducting the raffle.
In other words, while a member conducting the raffle may be gainfully employed by the qualified
organization, the member’s participation in conducting the raffle must be voluntary and unpaid.
Conduct,
MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct?utm_
campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld.
5
6
This office’s prior opinions on the acceptance of second-chance lottery promotion entry forms online (2017
OK AG 2) and the acceptance of pari-mutuel wagering on horse races online (2002 OK AG 25) are not implicated.
Unlike a lottery (3A O.S.2021, § 723) or horse racing (3A O.S.2001, §§ 205.6, 205.6a, 205.7), there is nothing in
Oklahoma law limiting the location where raffle tickets can be purchased. 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4). Regardless,
2017 OK AG 2 was rendered obsolete by the passage of 3A O.S.Supp.2018, § 724.5, which expressly authorized
online second-chance lottery promotions.
Representative Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
A.G. Opinion
Page 5
“The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and to apply the intent of the Legislature
that enacted the statute.” McIntosh v. Watkins, 2019 OK 6, ¶ 4, 441 P.3d 1094, 1096. “Such intent
must be gleaned from the statute in view of its general purpose and object.” Grimes v. City of
Oklahoma City, 2002 OK 47, ¶ 6, 49 P.3d 719, 723, as corrected (July 8, 2002). When the focus
of the interpretation is “on a particular word or phrase in a statute . . ., we are not allowed to ignore
the statutory context wherein the particular word or phrase appears.” Stricklen v. Multiple Inj. Tr.
Fund, 2024 OK 1, ¶ 19, 542 P.3d 858, 867, as corrected (Jan. 31, 2024).
Here, 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4)(b) is aimed at placing limitations on conducting a raffle. Thus,
in this context, the phrase “without compensation to any member” is referring to the act of
conducting a raffle. It is not referencing unrelated acts by the member on behalf of the qualified
organization.
Regardless, even if there were an ambiguity in 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4)(b), the same conclusion
is reached. “Where a statute is ambiguous or its meaning uncertain it is to be given a reasonable
construction, one that will avoid absurd consequences if this can be done without violating
legislative intent.” McIntosh, 2019 OK 6, ¶ 4, 441 P.3d at 1096.
As previously explained, only those members in charge of the raffle are considered to have
conducted the raffle. It is absurd to conclude that the members trusted by the qualified organization
to manage or lead the raffle are precluded from obtaining gainful employment from the qualified
organization. The statutory text also bolsters this outcome by authorizing schools, police
departments, and fire departments to conduct a raffle—each organization paying its employees. 11
O.S.2021, §§ 51-101, 51-103; 70 O.S.2021, § 5-117. And, after all, the statute does not say that
the individual participating in the raffle must somehow be an “unpaid” employee or require the
person to be a “volunteer” non-employee of the organization. Rodgers v. Higgins, 1993 OK 45,
¶ 18, 871 P.2d 398, 409 (“We should not read into the law that which is not there.”). But to remain
in compliance with 21 O.S.2021, § 1051(A)(4)(b), the member’s act of conducting the raffle still
needs to remain voluntary and without pay.
Accordingly, a salaried employee of a qualified organization may conduct a raffle without
violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051 as long as that employee’s participation in conducting the raffle is
voluntary and their compensation is not directly tied to conducting the raffle.
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1.
The use of a third-party electronic raffle platform or software by a qualified
organization to host a raffle online, to include fulfilling ticket orders,
processing payments, and providing a random number generator for raffle
entries does not violate 21 O.S.2021, § 1051.
2.
A salaried employee of a qualified organization may conduct a raffle without
violating 21 O.S.2021, § 1051 as long as that employee’s participation in
conducting the raffle is voluntary and their compensation is not directly tied
to conducting the raffle.
Representative Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
A.G. Opinion
Page 6
These determinations are limited to the text of the question and the general information provided
to this office. This opinion does not determine whether a raffle is lawful as applied to a particular
fact situation, and it shall not be construed in such a manner. Unlike a court, an Attorney General
Opinion does not consider or make rulings on factual issues; Attorney General Opinions are
limited to questions of law. 74 O.S.Supp.2022, § 18b(A)(5); 2023 OK AG 14; 2012 OK AG 23.
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
GARRY M. GASKINS, II
SOLICITOR GENERAL