Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Swinging, To Nobody’s Shock
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, not surprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally get them to support almost any viewpoint on just about anything, based on that 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 studies will go any which way you want ’em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is 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 whole concept of Internet gambling. He has been proven to refer to the very concept as ‚a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‚a toxin which all good people need to resist,’ and also funded TV and print advertisements the 2009 summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this topic have been released and obtained 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 weblog that the findings of the research had been ‚quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away on the internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‚a way to generate income for their state,’ with approval ratings including high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved as much using their current development in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 % 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 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 fact https://real-money-casino.club/club-player-online-casino/, the land casino that is latest to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, situated in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 % of its workforce just 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 supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according to this research, in all four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, by having an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‚ we do not like it’ side of the fence. According to wording (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they were and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anyone freaks out excessively by what any one of this can 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 had been dead set against online gambling enterprises, and we see just how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs allows its feelings be understood in no uncertain terms regarding New York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has rejected a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the way for voters into the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the appropriate challenge to be ‚untimely and lacking in legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a big blow to opponents of the measure, whom had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case had been brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, whom objected towards the language used in the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‚promoting work growth, increasing help to schools and permitting local governments to reduce home taxes. on the ballot’
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 passions 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 good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points as soon as the positive 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 window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed away. That window began on August 19 or perhaps August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little the challenge was not made until October 1.
Obviously, 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 legal arguments which we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were predictably disappointed by your choice.
‚We’re disappointed that the judge chose to block a discussion that is legitimate the merits of whether hawaii gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ said 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 appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to use an early in the day form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office 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.
If the measure should pass, it would talk about 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.