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, doesn’t come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally encourage them to support almost any standpoint on just about anything, according to who’s included and exactly how you interpret the information. And when it’s mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you will be sure the studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons that are not entirely clear towards the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been known to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and also funded TV and print adverts this past summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject are 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 whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings associated with the research were ‘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 casinos were found to be ‘a method to create revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from a lot of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved as much making use of their current development in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 percent 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 actually have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and Ca, 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 clearly was more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In fact, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned 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 say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ Just What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nonetheless. Because, according to the research, in most four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated failed to have a positive view of iGaming, by having an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not enjoy 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 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 on-line poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out too much by what some 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, and we see just 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 regarding New York State’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 means for voters in the state to vote regarding the measure in November.
The lawsuit was 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 regarding the measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that will appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to your language used in the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting task growth, increasing help to schools and allowing local governments to reduce home taxes. on the ballot’
That ended up being the language which 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 strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a number of compromises and handles different interests in the state to make this type of proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unfair. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These concerns gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points as soon as the good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit had been filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That window began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that could 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 continue as planned.
‘We’re pleased 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 selected 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 brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to use 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 help,’ Snyder told The nyc circumstances.
In the event that measure should pass, it would mention to seven new casino resorts to selected regions 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.