
Divide and Conquer
Significantly Indebted
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To Nobody’s Surprise
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally encourage them to support pretty much any viewpoint on just about any such thing, according to who is involved and how you interpret the information. 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 are not entirely clear to your remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been proven to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded TV and print advertisements this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this topic have already 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 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 of this study were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a method to build revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings including high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved as much making use of their current development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia have any legal land casinos 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 fact, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned 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 say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ Exactly What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according to this wizardofozslots.org study, in every four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, by having an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t like it’ part of the fence. According to wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they were in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not plainly differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anybody freaks out way too much by what any one of this might 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 had been dead set against online gambling enterprises, and now we see 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 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 method for voters into the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit ended up being dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the legal challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, who had hoped that they could delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case had been brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the 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 regional governments to lower property taxes.’
That was the language which had been approved 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 range compromises and deals with different passions in their state to help make such a proposal possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unjust. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These issues gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points when the positive language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That screen began on August 19 or even 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 pleased that their legal arguments were accepted, and that the vote would continue as prepared.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ stated Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were predictably disappointed by the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on 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 get emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to use an previous form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office that did not range from 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.
If the 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 groups that are american the area.
