Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Swinging, To No Body’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 thing about studies is, you can generally get them to support more or less any viewpoint on just about any such thing, according to who is included and 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 iGaming Fan Himself
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons which can be maybe not totally clear to the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s 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 also funded TV and print advertisements this past summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this subject are 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 journalist that is even seasoned whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his blog that the findings regarding the research were ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web 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 ranging from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved as much with their recent growth in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 per cent 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 have any land that is legal at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and California, the support stemmed mostly from the want to help offset state budget deficits, despite the fact that land-based casino saturation nationwide is currently starting to rear its ugly mind and there is more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In reality, the latest land casino to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington was already forced to layoff 15 per cent 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 say, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style gaming.’ What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nonetheless. Because, according for this study casino royale slot machine free play, in every four queried states, 3x as numerous of people who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, by having an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not enjoy it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated most vehemently that they were and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not clearly 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 may 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, 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 regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A brand New York State judge has rejected a challenge to the wording of the latest York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters in the state to vote on the measure in November.
The lawsuit was 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 big blow to opponents of this 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 ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will be described as ‘promoting job development, increasing aid to schools and permitting regional governments to lower property taxes.’
That had been the language which had been approved 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 quantity of compromises and relates to different interests in the state to make this kind of proposition possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being 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 merit that is additional a poll by Siena College discovered that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was in fact used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the 14-day screen 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 difference that is little the challenge was not made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would go on as prepared.
‘We’re happy that Judge Platkin accepted the arguments that are legal we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ stated Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been let down by predictably your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge selected 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 New York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he is 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 opportunity to use 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 help,’ Snyder told The nyc Times.
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.