Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To No One’s Surprise
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, unsurprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The benefit of studies is, you can generally cause them to support almost any viewpoint on just about anything, depending on who is involved and exactly how you interpret the information. And when it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you will be sure the scholarly 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 that are perhaps not entirely 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 proven to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and also funded television and print adverts this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this topic have 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 even seasoned journalist Ralston whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings of the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away on the internet form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a way to build revenue for their state,’ with approval ratings including high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved just as much using their current growth in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were 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 fact, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington has already 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 diverse from state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ Exactly What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according for this research, in most four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated failed to have a positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t like it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated many 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 anybody freaks out a lot of in what some of this could 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 gambling enterprises, so we see how that played out.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known in no uncertain terms New that is regarding York’s the wizard of oz slots zynga upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A brand 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 regarding 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 had been a blow that is big opponents regarding the measure, who had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that will 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. The measure will be described as ‘promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and allowing local governments to lower home taxes. on the ballot’
That had been the language which had been approved 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 an amount of compromises and deals with different passions in hawaii to help make this type of proposal possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unjust. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These concerns gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College found that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points as soon as the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language was used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit had been filed far after the 14-day window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That window began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made small difference and the challenge was not made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was happy that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would carry on as planned.
‘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 had been predictably disappointed by the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge chose 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,’ stated a statement by the newest York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to get emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to make use of an early in the day 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 support,’ Snyder told The New York circumstances.
If the measure should pass, it would bring up 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 groups that are american the area.