Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To No Body’s Shock
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a study that is four-state, needless to say, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally speaking cause them to support nearly any viewpoint on just about anything, depending on 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 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 which are maybe not totally clear to the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been known to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded television and print advertisements this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this topic were released and obtained 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 who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings of this study were ‘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 means to build income for their state,’ with approval ratings including a lot of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved the maximum amount of using their current development in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 per cent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia already have any land that is legal at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and Ca, the support stemmed largely 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 fact, the land casino that is latest to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 per cent 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 study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according for this study, in most four queried states, 3x as much of people who participated failed to have a positive view of iGaming, by having an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ side of the fence. Depending on wording (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they had been in favor of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not demonstrably differentiate between general Internet gambling and poker that is online se, however, and before anyone freaks out too much in what any 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 had been dead set against online gambling enterprises, so we see just how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge lucky nugget casino free spins bonus 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 way for voters into the state to vote regarding 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 with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a big blow to opponents associated with measure, who had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least change the wording that will appear on the ballot. The case ended up being brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected to the language used within the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure are going to be described as ‘promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting regional governments to lessen property taxes.’
That ended up being 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 range compromises and relates to different passions in the state in order to make such a proposition feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unfair. Since the language included suggested positive 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 help for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language had been used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit ended up being filed far after the 14-day window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That window began on August 19 or perhaps August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made small difference and the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Obviously, the state was delighted that their arguments that are legal 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,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were predictably let down by your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge selected 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,’ stated a statement by the latest York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to find emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance 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 nyc days.
If the measure should pass, it would talk about to seven brand new casino resorts to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous American groups throughout the area.