Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, To Nobody’s Shock
Las vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, not surprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking get them to support almost any standpoint on just about anything, based on that is involved 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 studies will go any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons being perhaps not completely 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 proven to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded television and print advertisements this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject happen 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 journalist that is even seasoned who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings of the research were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a way to build revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved the maximum amount of with their present growth in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 percent 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 actually have any land that is legal at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and California, the support stemmed mainly from the desire to help offset state budget deficits, even though land-based casino saturation nationwide is currently starting to rear its ugly head and there is certainly more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In reality, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington had been 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 state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according to the research, in every four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not like it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated most vehemently that they were and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anyone freaks out an excessive club player casino no deposit bonuses amount of about what any of this could potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, understand that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online gambling enterprises, so we see just how that played out.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be known in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A brand New York State judge has rejected a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters in the state to vote on the measure in November.
The lawsuit had been dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the appropriate challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a big blow to opponents associated with the measure, who had hoped that they could 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, who objected to your language used into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will likely be described as ‘promoting job development, increasing aid to schools and permitting regional governments to lessen property taxes.’
That was 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 strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a wide range of compromises and relates to different passions in hawaii to make this kind of proposal possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unjust. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total results of the referendum. These concerns gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College discovered that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points as soon as the positive 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 window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was happy that their legal arguments were accepted, and that the vote would carry on as prepared.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the appropriate arguments which we raised and that the election process can continue 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 chose 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,’ stated a statement by the brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is not done yet. He plans to get 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 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 ny Times.
If the measure should pass, it would bring up to seven new casino resorts to selected regions 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.