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 study that is four-state, unsurprisingly, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally cause them to support more or less any standpoint on just about anything, according to who’s involved and just how you interpret the data. And when 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’s no news that Adelson for reasons which can be maybe not entirely clear towards the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He has been known to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded television and print advertisements this past summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject happen obtained and released 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 of the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away on the internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be ‘a means to come up with income for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved just as much making use of their current development in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 % in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia already 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, based 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 diverse from say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according for this research, in most four queried states, 3x as numerous of people who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, by having an general average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not like it’ part of the fence. Depending on wording (shock, 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 obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and internet poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out excessively in what some of this could potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, understand that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online gambling enterprises, so we see just how that played out.
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, free slot machine indian dreaming paving the way for voters in the state to vote in 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 had been a blow that is big opponents associated with the measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that will appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the language used into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure is described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting regional governments to lower property taxes.’
That had been 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 strong supporter of the measure, and crafted an amount of compromises and relates to different interests in their state to make this kind of proposal possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unfair. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These concerns gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College discovered that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points once the good 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 window 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 difference that is little the challenge was not made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was happy that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would go on as prepared.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal 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 were let down by predictably your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided on to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether the state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ said a statement by this new York Public Interest analysis 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 opportunity 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 help,’ Snyder told The ny 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 number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by native groups that are american the area.