Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To No-one’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 get them to support almost any standpoint on just about such a thing, depending on who is included and how you interpret the data. And when it’s mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you can be sure the studies will go any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons which are perhaps not totally clear to your rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print adverts the 2009 summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject were 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 whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings associated with research were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously 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 come up with income for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from a lot of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved just as much making use of their recent development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 percent 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 latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, situated in southwestern area Farmington has already been forced to layoff 15 per cent of its workforce only two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s diverse from state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ Just What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according for this research, in most four queried states, 3x as numerous of people who participated didn’t have a positive view of iGaming, by having an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t want it’ part of the fence. Depending on wording (surprise, shock), 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 internet poker per se, however, and before anybody freaks out too much about what any one 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 in 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 known in no uncertain terms regarding 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 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 legal challenge to be ‘untimely and lacking in legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a big blow to opponents of this measure, who had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least change the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to your language used within the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure is going to be described as ‘promoting job development, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lessen property taxes.’
That ended up being the language which had been approved by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a number of compromises and addresses different interests in hawaii to create this kind of proposal feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unfair. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points as soon as the positive language was included, compared to when more neutral language have been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the 14-day screen in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen 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 happy that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would continue as planned.
‘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 predictably let down by your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether hawaii gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ stated a statement by this new York Public Interest Research 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 opportunity to use an earlier form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office 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 ny instances.
If the measure should pass, it would talk about 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 American groups throughout the area.