Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To Nobody’s Shock
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, not surprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally get them to support almost any viewpoint on just about such a thing, according to who’s involved and just how you interpret the information. And if it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you can be sure the scholarly studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons that are maybe not totally clear to the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print advertisements this past summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this subject have been obtained and released by Nevada public affairs reporter Jon Ralston. The findings focus on four states that are potentially key this matter: California, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. Kentucky? Who knew. And journalist that is even seasoned who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings for the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a means to generate income for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved just as much with their current growth in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia already have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. The support stemmed largely from a desire to help offset state budget deficits, even though land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly head and there is more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts for Pennsylvania and California. In fact, the land casino that is latest to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, situated in southwestern area Farmington was already forced to layoff 15 % of its workforce only two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s different than say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according for this research, in every four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated didn’t have positive view of iGaming, by having an general average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not want it’ side of the fence. According to wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they were in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not demonstrably differentiate between general Internet gambling and online poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out excessively about what any of this might potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, remember that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online gambling enterprises, and we see how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has rejected a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters in the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit ended up being dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the legal challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a blow that is big opponents of the measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to the language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will likely be described as ‘promoting work development, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lessen property taxes.’
That was the language which had been approved by the State Board of Elections geisha free slot play in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted an amount of compromises and deals with different interests in hawaii in order to make this type of proposal possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unfair. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points once the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language was in fact used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the 14-day screen in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made small difference and the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was happy that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would continue as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the legal arguments which we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were predictably let down by your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge chose to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether hawaii gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ said a statement by the latest York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to find emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to make use of an early in the day version of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not range from the ‘advocacy language.’
‘Ignoring the attorney general’s recommendation, the Board of Elections changed the neutrally worded casino amendment by adding language to gain voter help,’ Snyder told The ny occasions.
If the measure should pass, it would mention to seven brand new casino resorts to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.