Divide and Conquer
Significantly Indebted
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To No Body’s Surprise
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, needless to say, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally get them to support pretty much any viewpoint on just about such a thing, dependent on who is involved and just 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 studies will get any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons which can be perhaps not entirely clear to your rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been proven to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer tumors waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print adverts earlier this summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject have been 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 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 were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously 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 method to generate revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings which range from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved as much making use of their current development 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. For Pennsylvania and California, the support stemmed mainly from a desire to help offset state budget deficits, despite the fact that land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly head and there was more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In reality, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 % of its workforce just two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s diverse from say, ‘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, nonetheless. Because, according to the study, in every four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated failed to have positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not like it’ part of the fence. Dependent on wording (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated most 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 poker that is online se, however, and before anybody 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, keep in mind that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, 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 refused a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters within the state to vote on the measure in November.
The lawsuit was 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 had been a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least change the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to your language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting job 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 which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a number of compromises and relates to different interests in their state to make such a 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 outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the 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 had been 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 little difference and the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was delighted that their legal arguments were accepted, and that the vote would go on as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal 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 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,’ said 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 courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to make use of an earlier 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 help,’ Snyder told The New York circumstances.
In the event that measure should pass, it would bring up to seven brand 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.