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 speaking cause them to support more or less any casino-bonus-free-money.com standpoint on just about anything, according to who 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 studies will get any which way you want ’em to.
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 proven to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer waiting to happen’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and also funded TV and print adverts this past summer time towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results with this topic have already been obtained and released 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 even seasoned journalist Ralston whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his weblog that the findings associated with research had been ‘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 means to generate revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings which range from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (that has already proved as much using their recent development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 % in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were perhaps not quite so friendly.
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 largely 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 was 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, based in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 percent of its workforce only two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s diverse from state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ Just What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according to this research, in all four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated didn’t have positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not want it’ side of the fence. Dependent on wording (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they were in favor of 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 anybody freaks out excessively about what any of this can potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, understand that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online gambling enterprises, and we see how that played down.
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be understood 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 refused a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the method for voters in 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.’
That was a blow that is big opponents associated with measure, who had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that could appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy attorney Eric J. Snyder, who objected to your language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure will be described as ‘promoting job development, increasing aid to schools and permitting neighborhood governments to lower property taxes.’
That was the language that 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 supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a quantity of compromises and addresses different passions in their state to help make such a proposition possible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language getting used was unfair. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the outcomes of the referendum. These issues gained additional merit when a poll by Siena College found that support for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points whenever good language was included, compared 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 window in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or maybe August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little the challenge wasn’t 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 appropriate arguments which we raised and that the election process can continue moving forward,’ stated Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were predictably let down by your decision.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge decided to block a legitimate discussion on 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 analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to use an earlier form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s workplace that did not include 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 Times.
In the event that measure should pass, it would bring up to seven new casino resorts to selected regions of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous US groups throughout the area.