Las 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 nearly any viewpoint on just about anything, according to that is included and how you interpret the data. And when it’s 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.
It’s no news that Adelson for reasons that are maybe not totally clear towards the remaining portion of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly in opposition to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He has been recognized to refer to the concept that is very ‘a cancer tumors waiting to take place’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and even funded TV and print adverts the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this subject were 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 journalist that is even seasoned who hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings of this study were ‘quite startling'; mainly, the rather demonstrably 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 method to create income for hawaii,’ with approval ratings which range from most of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved as much with their present growth in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 percent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite therefore friendly.
Particularly interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia actually have any legal land casinos at this juncture in time. For Pennsylvania and Ca, the support stemmed largely from the desire to help offset state budget deficits, even though land-based casino saturation nationwide is currently starting to rear its ugly head 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 was already 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 state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video https://wizardofozslots.org/lobstermania/ gaming.’ Exactly What?
Where this study that is supposedly unbiased interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, however. Because, according to the study, in all four queried states, 3x as many of people who participated did not have a positive view of iGaming, with an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we don’t enjoy it’ side of the fence. Based on wording (shock, surprise), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia individuals stated most vehemently that they had been and only online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not obviously differentiate between general Internet gambling and online poker per se, however, and before anybody freaks out a lot of by what any one of this may 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 had been dead set against online gambling enterprises, so we see just how that played away.
Tioga Downs lets 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 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 challenge that is legal be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
That was a big blow to opponents of this measure, whom had hoped that they are able to delay a vote, or at least replace the wording that will appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, whom objected to the language used within the referendum question. The measure will be described as ‘promoting work growth, increasing help to schools and permitting local governments to reduce property taxes. on the ballot’
That was 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 supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a number of compromises and handles different interests in their state in order to make this kind of 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 total outcomes of the referendum. These concerns gained extra merit when a poll by Siena College discovered that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine portion points as soon as the good language was included, compared 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 window that is 14-day which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or even August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made difference that is little the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would carry on as planned.
‘We’re pleased 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.
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure had been predictably disappointed 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,’ said a statement by the brand new York Public Interest analysis Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to seek emergency relief from the appellate courts, and points out that the Board of Elections had the opportunity to use an previous form of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office 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 instances.
In the event that measure should pass, it would bring up to seven new casino resorts to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a number of existing casinos that are owned and operated by Native American groups throughout the area.