Divide and Conquer
Significantly Indebted
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, To No Body’s Shock
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, needless to say, doesn’t come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally speaking cause them to support pretty much any viewpoint on just about such a thing, depending on who’s involved and just how you interpret the data. And if it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you can be sure the studies will get any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons that are maybe not totally clear to the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He has been known to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and also funded TV and print advertisements the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this subject have now been 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 who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings associated with the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a way to come up with revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved as much using their present growth in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 per cent 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 actually have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and California, the support stemmed mainly from the need to help offset state budget deficits, despite the fact that land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly mind and there is certainly more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In fact, the land casino that is latest to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located 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.’ Exactly What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nonetheless. Because, according to this study, in every four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated didn’t have a positive view of iGaming, by having an general average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t like it’ part of the fence. According to wording (surprise, shock), 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 demonstrably differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anybody freaks out way too much about what any of this might 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 had been dead set against online casinos, and now we see how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be understood 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 rejected a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters within 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 lacking in legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, who had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure are going to be described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting neighborhood governments to lessen property taxes.’
That had been 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 an amount of compromises and deals with different passions in the state to produce this kind of proposition 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 results of the referendum. These issues gained extra 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 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. That window began on August 19 or perhaps 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 carry on as prepared.
‘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 had been let down by predictably your choice.
‘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,’ said a statement by the New York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to get 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 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 New York Times.
In the event that measure should pass, it would bring up to seven casino that is new to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by Native American groups throughout the area.