Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Swinging, To No-one's Surprise
Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, unsurprisingly, does not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally speaking encourage them to support just about any standpoint on just about any such thing, according to that is involved and how you interpret the data. 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 which can be maybe not entirely clear towards the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He's 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 even funded television and print advertisements the 2009 summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson's commissioned poll results with this subject were 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 weblog that the findings for the study were 'quite startling'; mainly, the rather demonstrably self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the web form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar gambling enterprises were found to be 'a method to generate income for their state,' with approval ratings ranging from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved just as much using their current development in that arena), 61 per cent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so 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 Ca, the support stemmed mainly from the desire to help offset state budget deficits, despite the fact that land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly head and there is certainly more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts. In reality, the latest land casino to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, positioned 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.' Just What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, but. Because, according to this research, in all four queried states, 3x as many of those who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, with an overall average margin off 66-22 on the ' we don't want it' side of the fence. Dependent on wording (surprise, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they were in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not demonstrably differentiate between general Internet gambling and on-line poker per se, however, and before anybody freaks out too much about what any of this could 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 to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known 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 the latest York's upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters in the state to vote on the measure in November.
The lawsuit had been dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the legal challenge to be 'untimely and lacking in legal merit.'
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That had been a big blow to opponents of the measure, whom had hoped that they could 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 into the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure are described as 'promoting work growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting neighborhood governments to lower property taxes.'
That had been the language which 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 relates to different interests in hawaii in order to make this type of proposal feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language used was unfair. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the total outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points when the good language was included, in comparison to when more neutral language was indeed used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder's lawsuit had been filed far after the 14-day screen in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made small difference and the challenge had not been made until October 1.
Naturally, 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 appropriate 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 had been let down by predictably your decision.
'We're disappointed that the judge decided to block a legitimate discussion on 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 this 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 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 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 Times.
If the measure should pass, it would talk about to seven brand new casino resorts to selected regions of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by Native US groups throughout the area.
Published by: normaladmin in Lucky Nugget Casino