Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, To Nobody’s Surprise
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, doesn’t come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally speaking encourage them to support almost any standpoint on just about any such thing, based 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 may be sure the scholarly studies will go any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons which can be not entirely clear to the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He has been proven to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer tumors waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded television and print ads the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject are 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 blog that the findings associated with the research were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably 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 create revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved the maximum amount of using their present development in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 percent 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 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 land casino that is latest to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, located in southwestern area Farmington was already 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 video gaming.’ What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to this study, in most four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated didn’t have 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 (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they had been in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anybody freaks out a lot of by what any one 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 in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans had been dead set against online casinos, so we see how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be understood in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’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 way for voters within 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 with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to the language used within the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will likely be described as ‘promoting task growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting neighborhood governments to lower property taxes.’
That ended up being the language which had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in July, which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted an amount of compromises and relates to different passions in hawaii in order to make this type of proposal feasible.
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 total results of the referendum. These concerns gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points whenever good language was included, compared to when more neutral language was indeed used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That window began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little 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 go on as planned.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the legal 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 let down by predictably your choice.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on to block a genuine discussion on 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 latest 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 opportunity to use 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 instances.
If the measure should pass, it would mention to seven casino that is new 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.