Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Moving, To No-one’s Shock
Las vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, not surprisingly, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally cause them to support almost any standpoint on just about such a thing, according to who is included and exactly how you interpret the information. And if 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 iGaming Fan Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons which are perhaps not completely clear to your rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been recognized to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and also funded TV and print ads earlier this lucky nugget casino summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this subject have already 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 journalist that is even seasoned whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings associated with the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a means to come up with income for their state,’ with approval ratings ranging from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved as much using their recent development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent 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 already have any legal land casinos 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, located in southwestern area Farmington was already forced to layoff 15 percent 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 video gaming.’ What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according to the research, in all four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated failed to have positive view of iGaming, by having an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ part of the fence. Based on wording (surprise, 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 plainly differentiate between general Internet gambling and internet poker per se, however, and before anybody freaks out way too much by what any one of this might 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 had been 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 allows its feelings be understood in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has refused a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the way for voters in the state to vote on the measure in November.
The lawsuit ended up being 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 for the measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure is described as ‘promoting job development, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lessen property taxes.’
That was the language that 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 a number of compromises and addresses different interests in their state in order to make this kind of proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unjust. Since the language included suggested positive outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points as soon as the positive language was included, compared to when more neutral language had 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 window began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that could have made little difference and the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was happy that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would carry on as prepared.
‘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 had been let down by predictably the decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge selected to block a genuine discussion on 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 the newest York Public Interest analysis 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 make use of an early in the day version 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 support,’ Snyder told The ny days.
In the event that measure should pass, it would mention to seven casino that is new to selected regions of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous American groups throughout the area.