
Divide and Conquer
Greatly Indebted
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, To No Body’s Surprise
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 get them to support more or less any standpoint on just about any such thing, according to who’s involved and 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 go any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No Fan that is iGaming Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons being not totally clear to the remaining portion 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 occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and even funded TV and print advertisements the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject have now been 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 geisha slots android nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings regarding the research had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a means to build revenue for hawaii,’ with approval ratings including most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved as much using their present development 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 so 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 fact, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 percent 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 for this study, in most four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated failed to have positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t like it’ part of the fence. Depending on wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants 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 on-line poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out way too much by what any one of this can 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 in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, and now we see just how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be known in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters in 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 challenge that is legal be ‘untimely and lacking in legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a blow that is big opponents of this measure, who had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected to your language used into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure are described as ‘promoting task growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes.’
That had been the language which had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a range compromises and handles different interests in their state in order to make this type of proposition possible.
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 additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points once the 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 14-day window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made little difference and the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was happy that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would carry on as planned.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the appropriate arguments which we raised and that the election process can continue moving forward,’ said 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 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,’ stated a statement by the brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is 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 use an early in the day 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 nyc occasions.
If the measure should pass, it would bring up to seven brand 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.