
Divide and Conquer
Greatly Indebted
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To Nobody’s Shock
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking get them to support nearly any standpoint on just about anything, according to who’s involved and just how you interpret the data. And when it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you will be sure the studies will go any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons which can be maybe not totally clear to your remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He has been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print ads earlier this summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject are released and obtained by Nevada public affairs reporter Jon Ralston. The findings focus on four potentially key states in this matter: California, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. Kentucky? Who knew. And even seasoned journalist Ralston who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings of this study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a way to build revenue for hawaii,’ with approval ratings which range from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved just as much with their recent growth in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite therefore friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia actually have any land that is legal 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 land casino that is latest to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 per cent 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 gaming.’ Just What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to this study, in most four queried states, 3x as numerous of those who participated didn’t have positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not want it’ part of the fence. Depending on wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they were and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not plainly differentiate between general Internet gambling and on-line poker per se, however, and before anybody freaks out an excessive amount of about what some of this could 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 had been dead set against online casinos, and we see how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be understood 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 way for voters within the state to vote regarding 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 was a big blow to opponents of this measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least change the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to the language used into the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing help to schools and allowing local governments to lower home taxes. on the ballot’
That was the language which had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a wide range of compromises and relates to different passions in the state to create this kind of proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unjust. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total results of the referendum. These concerns gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College found that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points whenever good language was included, compared to when more neutral language have been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was delighted that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would carry on as prepared.
‘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 were predictably disappointed by the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge opted for to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether their state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ stated a statement by the New York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to make use of an previous version of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office 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 nyc Times.
In the event that measure should pass, it would talk about 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 US groups throughout the area.