Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To No Body’s Surprise
Las vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally encourage them to support almost any viewpoint on just about anything, according to that is included and how you interpret the data. And when it’s mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you may be sure the scholarly studies will get any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons being not entirely clear to your rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s been known to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer tumors waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded TV and print adverts this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this topic have already been released and obtained 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 whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings for the research were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a means to build revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved just as much with their recent development in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 per cent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps 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 reality, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located in southwestern area Farmington was already forced to layoff 15 percent of its workforce just two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s different than state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ Exactly What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to the study, in every four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not want it’ part of the fence. Based on wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they had been in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not clearly differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anyone freaks out excessively about what any one of this may potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, keep in mind that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans had been dead set against online casinos, so we see just how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be known in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A brand New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters within 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 challenge that is legal be ‘untimely and lacking in legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a blow that is big opponents of the measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the language used in the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing help to schools and allowing local governments to reduce property taxes. on the ballot’
That had been the language that had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in July, which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted an amount of compromises and addresses different interests in their state in order to make such a proposal feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unfair. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points whenever good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was indeed used lucky nugget ring.
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. That window began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made little difference and the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would continue as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ stated Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been let down by predictably your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether the state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ said a statement by the latest York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is not done yet. He plans to get emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to make use of an early in the day version of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not include 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 support,’ Snyder told The New York instances.
If the measure should pass, it would mention to seven casino that is new to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.