Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Swinging, To No One’s Shock
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking cause them to support pretty much any standpoint on just about such a thing, depending on that is included and how you interpret the information. And when it’s 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 which are maybe not entirely clear towards the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded television and print advertisements the 2009 summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with 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 even seasoned journalist Ralston whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings associated with research 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 casinos were found to be ‘a method to build revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings which range from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved the maximum amount of making use of their current development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite therefore friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia already have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and California, the support stemmed mainly from a aspire to help offset state budget deficits, despite the fact that land-based casino saturation nationwide is currently starting to rear its ugly mind and there clearly was more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In fact, the latest land casino to go 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.’ Exactly What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to this research, in all four queried states, 3x as numerous of those who participated didn’t have positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ part of the fence. According to wording (surprise, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated many vehemently that they were in favor 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 anyone freaks out excessively about what any one of this can potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, remember that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, so we see just how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be understood 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 way for voters into the state to vote regarding 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 of this measure, whom had hoped that they could 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 attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting task growth, increasing aid to schools and allowing local governments to lower property taxes. on the ballot’
That ended up being 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 quantity of compromises and deals with different interests in the state to help make this type of proposition possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being 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 merit that is additional a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the positive language was included, compared to when more neutral language was indeed used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being 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 perhaps August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made little difference and the challenge was not made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would carry on as prepared.
‘We’re happy 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 had been let down by predictably the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge chose to block a legitimate discussion on 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’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 chance to make use of an earlier 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 support,’ Snyder told The nyc 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 number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.