
Divide and Conquer
Significantly Indebted
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To No One’s Shock
Las vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, unsurprisingly, doesn’t come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking get them to support more or less any standpoint on just about such a thing, depending on who’s included and 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 scholarly studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons being perhaps not totally clear to the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s been known to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded TV and print adverts the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this topic 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 whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings of the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away on the internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a way to build revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved as much using their current development in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite therefore friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and Ca, the support stemmed largely from the 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 certainly more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In fact, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington was already 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 say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to the research, in all four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (surprise, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated many vehemently that they were in support of 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 anyone freaks out a lot of by what any of this can potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, remember that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, and we see just how that played out.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be understood in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the way for voters into 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 challenge that is legal be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a big blow to opponents of the measure, who had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least change the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case had been 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 job growth, increasing aid to schools and allowing local governments to lower home taxes. on the ballot’
That was the language that 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 an amount of compromises and handles different passions in their state to help make such a proposition 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 results of the referendum. These concerns gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points whenever good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was in fact used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made small difference and the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was delighted that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would carry on as planned.
‘We’re pleased 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 let down by predictably your choice.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge opted for 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 this new York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is 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 previous form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not are 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 Times.
In the event that measure should pass, it would talk about to seven new casino resorts to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous American groups throughout the area.