Posted by admin February 24, 2020
Divide and Conquer
Adelson Funded iGaming Study Comes Out Moving, 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 get them to support pretty much any viewpoint on just about anything, based on who is included and just 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 Fan that is iGaming Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons which are not totally clear to the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the whole concept of Internet gambling. He’s got been proven to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer tumors waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded TV and print adverts this past summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this subject are 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 associated with the study had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away from the Internet version of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a means to build revenue for hawaii,’ with approval ratings ranging from high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which has already proved as much making use of their current growth in that arena), 61 % in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were 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 California, the support stemmed largely from a need to help offset state budget deficits, even though 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 land casino that is latest to get up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, based in southwestern area Farmington has already been forced to layoff 15 percent 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 video gaming.’ Just What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nonetheless. Because, according for this research, in all four queried states, 3x as numerous of people who participated would not lucky nugget wins have positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ part of the fence. Dependent on wording (surprise, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they were in favor of 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 an excessive amount of by what any of this may potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, remember that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online casinos, and now we see just how that played down.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge 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 brand 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 regarding the measure in November.
The lawsuit was 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 blow that is big opponents associated with the measure, who had hoped that they could delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case had been brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to your language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to reduce property taxes. on the ballot’
That ended up being 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 strong supporter of the measure, and crafted a range compromises and addresses different interests in the state to create this type of proposal possible.
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 total outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points when the positive language was included, compared to when more neutral language was indeed 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 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 pleased that their arguments that are legal accepted, and that the vote would go on as planned.
‘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 predictably let down by your choice.
‘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 this new York Public Interest Research 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 version 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 support,’ Snyder told The ny Times.
In the event that measure should pass, it would talk about to seven new casino resorts 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.