-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
remote gambling bill : hammer stirkes today
- Thread starter chrisfong
- Start date
Sheldon Adelson's Crusade Against Online Gaming
Author:
James McKeown
"I am willing to spend whatever it takes." This was the chilling one-line manifesto of the man who has made it his crusade to return America's online gambling industry to the doldrums of prohibition. Sheldon Adelson is a man of significant wealth, the eleventh richest in the US, and will commit no meagre percentage of his $37 billion fortune to convincing those in Washington that the Internet, as a delivery channel for gambling, is morally unacceptable; an improper force that would make unwitting victims of America's young and vulnerable, and lead them into an abyss of gambling addiction facilitated by unrestricted, and rather ironically, unregulated online access.
He is a man who is compelled by his 'moral standard' to make public his aversion to Internet gambling, a "societal train wreck waiting to happen", doing so in the guise of a "father, grandfather, citizen and patriot of this great country". However, it is his political weight as the country's most significant Republican donor, allied to the depth of his pockets, that has roused the concern of many in the industry.
Motivation
Just as the debate on Internet gambling boils to down to 'choice', as Boyd CEO, Keith Smith told John Ralston in a recent article for Forbes1, Adelson's rage against the Internet machine comes down to motive. Why would the Chairman of the world's largest and richest gambling company choose to eschew a new opportunity to expand the reach of his empire if he thought he could profit from it? His fortune, his success, after all, is a cause of his expansion to Asia.
He has been quick to distance himself from the obvious answer; that his concern is the cannibal effect of online competition to his terrestrial casinos in Nevada and Pennsylvania. In his campaigning article released through the Forbes website, the octogenarian casino magnate persuades that he harbours no fear of competition from any quarter, indeed, that his brands would be "very effective competitors in this marketplace." Adelson is no technocrat, more technophobe in this instance, but his assertion would be hard to argue against given the resources that would be at his disposal, should he wish to invest in a digital platform. Yet, he does not. His secondary rebuttal to those who presume ulterior motives are at play, is that his US resorts make more money, twice the amount, from non-gaming attractions than any casino-related operations – hardly a surprise, given that non-gaming revenue has, since 1999, consecutively and increasingly eclipsed casino revenue on the Las Vegas Strip (gaming revenue accounted for $5.7 billion, or 37 percent of the total $15.5 billion in 20133).
He concludes this section of his case for attack declaring that the majority of his company's entire business profits emanate from Asia, "where online gambling doesn't exist and won't be legalized soon, if ever." He continues, "So while the impact on my company's business would be limited, the hit on other commercial casinos, Native American casinos, and racetrack-casinos across the land could be substantial and even lead to their eventual demise.
"Recent research from a number of European countries shows that the proliferation of Internet gaming has, as a start, resulted in a 20 percent decrease in visitation to the land-based casinos in those countries. That number is bound to worsen as Internet gaming dependency grows."
It's here, perhaps, where Adelson's argument begins to unravel. Firstly, a resorts casino making more money from its resorts than its casino isn't news, and holds little water in this argument; hardly enough to float just one of The Venetian's gondolas. The combined percentage of revenue derived from food, beverage and hotel room revenue, as well as other income, does indeed outweigh that of gaming, but when broken down into individual segments, gaming, as you would imagine, accounts for the majority (UNLV's data suggests that 45 percent of Nevada's 2013 state-wide casino revenue is from gaming). Las Vegas is a casino resort, after all, and the majority of revenue from hotel rooms, food and beverages, and other attractions is likely to be generated by the same people pumping money into the casino floor. If there were no casinos, these resorts would just be hotels in the desert; therefore, the term 'non-gaming revenue' can only be applied within a holistic gaming context. For the most part, they are inextricably linked.
Adelson knows this, of course, and nobly sympathises with the plight of everyone else's casinos bar his own; that the digitalisation of his industry could eventually lead to the 'eventual demise' of terrestrial businesses nationwide. But despite his pleas of immunity due to his company's vast Asian profits, Adelson does not convince of his indifference to the commercial threat of the Internet. Indeed, as New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak told me, Adelson's concerns are all too obvious. "His only interest is stopping Internet gaming from competing with his land-based casinos. He professes to be concerned for Internet gaming's adverse impact on low income families, yet he spends millions supporting candidates who support cuts in food stamps and unemployment benefits. And the demographic for Internet gaming players is middle and upper income."
This perceived 'hypocrisy' has stirred debate within the iGaming industry – the man who has built his fortune on the misfortune of others dares to adopt the 'moral' high ground when it comes to the mode of delivery of the very service he offers. The expansion of gambling has never morally troubled Sheldon Adelson before – on the contrary, it has long been his forte.
Christina Thakor-Rankin, Principal Consultant at 1710 Gaming, uses Adelson's quote, "I won't go into the business because it's a moral issue for me" to ask whether he is a moral crusader or hypocritical spoil-sport. "That (quote) is the sum of Adelson's grudge against online gambling," she explains.
"He is worried that online gambling will hurt young and vulnerable Americans, who may see it as means of easy money, presumably due to the immoral marketing practices of these 'online devils'. Interesting then that he has just partnered up with David Beckham for his Singapore and Macau ventures – a role model who will, by his very association, surely send a message of gambling, glamour and wealth to the young, and therefore vulnerable, in the Far East? Perhaps the US is a genuine pang of conscience, but if it is, it seemingly does not appear to extend beyond the land of the free, suggesting that Mr Adelson's moral compass is set less to 'do as I say and not as I do', and more to 'not in my back yard'."
Prohibition
If Thakor-Rankin is right about Adelson's moral compass, then it at least answers why his preferred solution to preventing this 'societal train wreck' is to convince Washington to ban it. You could forgive a man of his experience for defaulting to what should surely be seen as outdated policy in modern day Western civilisation, but America has only recently emerged from the grip of an effective prohibition on Internet gaming; the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006, which banned payment providers from accepting gaming transactions from US players over the Internet. With experience of the negative effects of prohibition so close at hand, surely the application of another blanket ban on Internet gaming would be foolhardy?
"Millions of Americans are participating in online gaming and the proposed gaming ban would ensure that they remain at risk to an unsafe black market," implores former Californian Congresswoman Mary Bono, who is a founding member of the new Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection (C4COP) that has been set up to fight any Congressional ban on Internet gaming. "We can look at other industries, like music and film, to see what happens when we do not make adjustments and adapt to modern technology. We need to make online gaming safer for the millions of consumers who are participating and add consumer protections to avert the serious risk of the black market."
To elaborate on this point, I asked John Pappas, Chairman of the Poker Players Alliance what sort of message this industrial and political standoff sends out to the gaming world, and the world at large, about America's pre-disposition to consider prohibition as a measure of control. As Barney Frank alluded to when introducing legislation to overturn UIGEA in 2007, surely all prohibition infringes on the personal freedoms of Americans?
"The type of prohibition that Adelson supports not only infringes on the rights of individuals, it also tramples on the rights of states to authorise the type of gaming they see fit," Pappas said. "Ironically, those that he claims to want to protect – children and problem gamblers – are made more vulnerable through prohibition. Regulation means strong protections for consumers and accountability for US operators. Fortunately, a vast majority of Americans oppose prohibitions and recognise the value of a licensed and regulated market."
Senator Lesniak added that "Egypt tried to stop its residents from Internet access. That didn't turn out well, did it? Likewise, thousands played Internet poker while it was banned in the US. Regulating it and creating jobs and revenues is the way to go, as we have in New Jersey."
It is outdated policy, and an almost reverse take on the monopoly regimes seen in Europe; less 'one body to rule all', and more 'I'm not doing it, so no-one else can'. The protections of modern day regulation are abundant and clear, which is why the majority of the iGaming discussion thus far has been on the best way to regulate it: state-by-state or federal. The near blanket consensus within the industry has been that federal regulation is the preferred model for Internet gaming (or poker, at least), but Congressional support for the issue has been hard to muster, and it remains difficult to predict when and how, and indeed whether this will change.
Clear and present danger?
The question that presents itself after considering his motives and reasons, is whether Sheldon Adelson has a chance of succeeding in Congress. "The threat is very real," explains John Pappas. "Mr Adelson is fully committed to this cause and has already promised to 'spend whatever it takes' to outlaw Internet gambling. It would be foolish for anyone to laugh this off. His rhetoric and approach thus far has been histrionic at best, but he has enough resources to buy the traction and support he needs.
"He has definitely muddied the waters in Congress and has made the chances of a positive gaming regulation bill very unlikely this year, but I would not say that his prohibition bill stands any better chance of passing."
Indeed, the introduction of legislation by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressional Representative Jason Chaffetz is proof of some sort that the 'Adelson effect' is having an impact, however limited thus far. Conversely, Senator Lesniak sees Adelson's chances of success being away from the federal gaze. "Adelson's threat is real at the state level where his money, used for ad campaigns and political contributions, will impede states from starting Internet gaming or compacting with states like New Jersey to allow their residents to engage in Internet gaming on our sites. "
At the federal level," he added, "it's hard to conceive the New Jersey Congressional delegation not being able to stop his effort since it would result in the loss of one or more casinos and thousands of jobs, but he could be successful in limiting Internet gaming to poker, thus getting Harry Reid's support since Nevada only allows Internet poker."
Joe Brennan, Chairman of iMEGA and a prominent figure in the process of legalising iGaming in New Jersey, believes the threat posed by Adelson is "only due to the kind of money he can pump into the effort if he chooses, but that's really the only threat. Getting 15 state attorneysgeneral to make personal statements about opposition to iGaming is eye-catching, but they have no legislative affect."
The Adelson-backed Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling has announced the endorsement of 15 attorneys-general from states that are known to be opposed to gambling, as well as the signing-up of 39 member organisations, composed almost entirely of faith and family groups.
"It's doubtful that state legislatures or governors will throw away their right to decide this issue," Brennan continued. "Is Sheldon ready for that long game? Is he ready to fight states trying to find more dollars for their budgets by opposing this? Probably not.
"He has little chance of succeeding. Congress is ambivalent about online gaming, and they're not likely to try and unwind what New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware have already done. Adelson will make it interesting, but he won't make the difference."
One organisation determined to ensure that Adelson does not make the difference is C4COP. Mary Bono, whilst never referring to Adelson or his Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling directly, believes that any attempts to introduce a Congressional ban will be dismissed. "A Congressional ban on all Internet gaming is unpopular with the public because it would step on state and individual rights, it would make all Americans less safe; it would be a huge step backward by trying to ban the Internet. There are many ways forward that can provide more protections for American families. Unfortunately, this Congressional gaming ban is the one way to move backward.
"We have a broad range of support from an array of business and consumer focused groups and organisations, and we believe that when Americans and Congress and the Administration realise the problems with a one-size fits all ban, they will overwhelmingly oppose it."
In terms of financial muscle, there would appear to be a significant imbalance between the two coalitions – a situation that would surely put the C4COP at a distinct disadvantage. "C4COP is in a very strong position because they are making arguments based on facts, not fiction," John Pappas suggested. "While Adelson's coalition can make a splash with their outlandish claims, those misrepresentations of fact will not stick around for the long run.
"The biggest challenge for the C4COP and those funding it will be political. Can they exert the same kind of political clout (fundraising) that Sheldon Adelson will unquestionably dump into the upcoming elections. I think this is one of the strongest attributes of the active poker community through the direction of the PPA. We need to show lawmakers that there are voters who care about this issue, and that there are consequences if they don't support players' rights."
It isn't just the C4COP whose greatest challenge will be political, the whole balance of progress for the regulation of iGaming in the US has hinged on how high up the political agenda the issue can ever get within Congress. To date, there have been too many higher priority items at the federal level. Naturally, the tax revenue that would be generated by a regulated market would appear the most compelling angle, as would the creation of jobs and the bolstering of the land-based sector – all things that are likely being monitored on a micro level in the sandbox of New Jersey. But despite times of continuing economic adversity, even this seems beyond any immediate horizon, and there appears some way to go before US politics can undo what it took Jon Kyl and Bill Frist one evening to accomplish with UIGEA in
2006.
Conclusion
How this seemingly endless moral and political see-sawing and posturing is consumed by the observant foreign online operators and regulators is another matter entirely, but John Pappas concludes that it won't have the negative impact of pushing foreign gaming investment away from the future US market. "The US market is just too attractive for gaming companies to completely ignore it. They would be wise to continue to pursue the US while at the same time building up their infrastructure and player base in 'friendlier' markets. One of our strongest messages for US regulation is being able to point to the successful regulation of Internet gaming in Europe and elsewhere. These jurisdictions have already tackled the technological and societal challenges and that should give US lawmakers piece of mind that they are not wading into untested waters."
The US seems undecided on its position on Internet gaming, as do certain of Adelson's allies, who despite being unable to see the opportunity, are willing to follow it into New Jersey. At least Sheldon Adelson knows where he stands, regardless of how plausibly he does so.
For all of his motivations, moral causes and commercial concerns, the only real consideration is his chance of success, and while this indecision on US iGaming prevails, Adelson's crusade will stand a chance of success, however remote, and for that his and his coalition's designs on the industry cannot be ignored.
Mary Bono would like to invite anyone interested in supporting responsible gaming to join this discussion and visit the coalition's website at www.c4cop.com
Author:
James McKeown
"I am willing to spend whatever it takes." This was the chilling one-line manifesto of the man who has made it his crusade to return America's online gambling industry to the doldrums of prohibition. Sheldon Adelson is a man of significant wealth, the eleventh richest in the US, and will commit no meagre percentage of his $37 billion fortune to convincing those in Washington that the Internet, as a delivery channel for gambling, is morally unacceptable; an improper force that would make unwitting victims of America's young and vulnerable, and lead them into an abyss of gambling addiction facilitated by unrestricted, and rather ironically, unregulated online access.
He is a man who is compelled by his 'moral standard' to make public his aversion to Internet gambling, a "societal train wreck waiting to happen", doing so in the guise of a "father, grandfather, citizen and patriot of this great country". However, it is his political weight as the country's most significant Republican donor, allied to the depth of his pockets, that has roused the concern of many in the industry.
Motivation
Just as the debate on Internet gambling boils to down to 'choice', as Boyd CEO, Keith Smith told John Ralston in a recent article for Forbes1, Adelson's rage against the Internet machine comes down to motive. Why would the Chairman of the world's largest and richest gambling company choose to eschew a new opportunity to expand the reach of his empire if he thought he could profit from it? His fortune, his success, after all, is a cause of his expansion to Asia.
He has been quick to distance himself from the obvious answer; that his concern is the cannibal effect of online competition to his terrestrial casinos in Nevada and Pennsylvania. In his campaigning article released through the Forbes website, the octogenarian casino magnate persuades that he harbours no fear of competition from any quarter, indeed, that his brands would be "very effective competitors in this marketplace." Adelson is no technocrat, more technophobe in this instance, but his assertion would be hard to argue against given the resources that would be at his disposal, should he wish to invest in a digital platform. Yet, he does not. His secondary rebuttal to those who presume ulterior motives are at play, is that his US resorts make more money, twice the amount, from non-gaming attractions than any casino-related operations – hardly a surprise, given that non-gaming revenue has, since 1999, consecutively and increasingly eclipsed casino revenue on the Las Vegas Strip (gaming revenue accounted for $5.7 billion, or 37 percent of the total $15.5 billion in 20133).
He concludes this section of his case for attack declaring that the majority of his company's entire business profits emanate from Asia, "where online gambling doesn't exist and won't be legalized soon, if ever." He continues, "So while the impact on my company's business would be limited, the hit on other commercial casinos, Native American casinos, and racetrack-casinos across the land could be substantial and even lead to their eventual demise.
"Recent research from a number of European countries shows that the proliferation of Internet gaming has, as a start, resulted in a 20 percent decrease in visitation to the land-based casinos in those countries. That number is bound to worsen as Internet gaming dependency grows."
It's here, perhaps, where Adelson's argument begins to unravel. Firstly, a resorts casino making more money from its resorts than its casino isn't news, and holds little water in this argument; hardly enough to float just one of The Venetian's gondolas. The combined percentage of revenue derived from food, beverage and hotel room revenue, as well as other income, does indeed outweigh that of gaming, but when broken down into individual segments, gaming, as you would imagine, accounts for the majority (UNLV's data suggests that 45 percent of Nevada's 2013 state-wide casino revenue is from gaming). Las Vegas is a casino resort, after all, and the majority of revenue from hotel rooms, food and beverages, and other attractions is likely to be generated by the same people pumping money into the casino floor. If there were no casinos, these resorts would just be hotels in the desert; therefore, the term 'non-gaming revenue' can only be applied within a holistic gaming context. For the most part, they are inextricably linked.
Adelson knows this, of course, and nobly sympathises with the plight of everyone else's casinos bar his own; that the digitalisation of his industry could eventually lead to the 'eventual demise' of terrestrial businesses nationwide. But despite his pleas of immunity due to his company's vast Asian profits, Adelson does not convince of his indifference to the commercial threat of the Internet. Indeed, as New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak told me, Adelson's concerns are all too obvious. "His only interest is stopping Internet gaming from competing with his land-based casinos. He professes to be concerned for Internet gaming's adverse impact on low income families, yet he spends millions supporting candidates who support cuts in food stamps and unemployment benefits. And the demographic for Internet gaming players is middle and upper income."
This perceived 'hypocrisy' has stirred debate within the iGaming industry – the man who has built his fortune on the misfortune of others dares to adopt the 'moral' high ground when it comes to the mode of delivery of the very service he offers. The expansion of gambling has never morally troubled Sheldon Adelson before – on the contrary, it has long been his forte.
Christina Thakor-Rankin, Principal Consultant at 1710 Gaming, uses Adelson's quote, "I won't go into the business because it's a moral issue for me" to ask whether he is a moral crusader or hypocritical spoil-sport. "That (quote) is the sum of Adelson's grudge against online gambling," she explains.
"He is worried that online gambling will hurt young and vulnerable Americans, who may see it as means of easy money, presumably due to the immoral marketing practices of these 'online devils'. Interesting then that he has just partnered up with David Beckham for his Singapore and Macau ventures – a role model who will, by his very association, surely send a message of gambling, glamour and wealth to the young, and therefore vulnerable, in the Far East? Perhaps the US is a genuine pang of conscience, but if it is, it seemingly does not appear to extend beyond the land of the free, suggesting that Mr Adelson's moral compass is set less to 'do as I say and not as I do', and more to 'not in my back yard'."
Prohibition
If Thakor-Rankin is right about Adelson's moral compass, then it at least answers why his preferred solution to preventing this 'societal train wreck' is to convince Washington to ban it. You could forgive a man of his experience for defaulting to what should surely be seen as outdated policy in modern day Western civilisation, but America has only recently emerged from the grip of an effective prohibition on Internet gaming; the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006, which banned payment providers from accepting gaming transactions from US players over the Internet. With experience of the negative effects of prohibition so close at hand, surely the application of another blanket ban on Internet gaming would be foolhardy?
"Millions of Americans are participating in online gaming and the proposed gaming ban would ensure that they remain at risk to an unsafe black market," implores former Californian Congresswoman Mary Bono, who is a founding member of the new Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection (C4COP) that has been set up to fight any Congressional ban on Internet gaming. "We can look at other industries, like music and film, to see what happens when we do not make adjustments and adapt to modern technology. We need to make online gaming safer for the millions of consumers who are participating and add consumer protections to avert the serious risk of the black market."
To elaborate on this point, I asked John Pappas, Chairman of the Poker Players Alliance what sort of message this industrial and political standoff sends out to the gaming world, and the world at large, about America's pre-disposition to consider prohibition as a measure of control. As Barney Frank alluded to when introducing legislation to overturn UIGEA in 2007, surely all prohibition infringes on the personal freedoms of Americans?
"The type of prohibition that Adelson supports not only infringes on the rights of individuals, it also tramples on the rights of states to authorise the type of gaming they see fit," Pappas said. "Ironically, those that he claims to want to protect – children and problem gamblers – are made more vulnerable through prohibition. Regulation means strong protections for consumers and accountability for US operators. Fortunately, a vast majority of Americans oppose prohibitions and recognise the value of a licensed and regulated market."
Senator Lesniak added that "Egypt tried to stop its residents from Internet access. That didn't turn out well, did it? Likewise, thousands played Internet poker while it was banned in the US. Regulating it and creating jobs and revenues is the way to go, as we have in New Jersey."
It is outdated policy, and an almost reverse take on the monopoly regimes seen in Europe; less 'one body to rule all', and more 'I'm not doing it, so no-one else can'. The protections of modern day regulation are abundant and clear, which is why the majority of the iGaming discussion thus far has been on the best way to regulate it: state-by-state or federal. The near blanket consensus within the industry has been that federal regulation is the preferred model for Internet gaming (or poker, at least), but Congressional support for the issue has been hard to muster, and it remains difficult to predict when and how, and indeed whether this will change.
Clear and present danger?
The question that presents itself after considering his motives and reasons, is whether Sheldon Adelson has a chance of succeeding in Congress. "The threat is very real," explains John Pappas. "Mr Adelson is fully committed to this cause and has already promised to 'spend whatever it takes' to outlaw Internet gambling. It would be foolish for anyone to laugh this off. His rhetoric and approach thus far has been histrionic at best, but he has enough resources to buy the traction and support he needs.
"He has definitely muddied the waters in Congress and has made the chances of a positive gaming regulation bill very unlikely this year, but I would not say that his prohibition bill stands any better chance of passing."
Indeed, the introduction of legislation by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressional Representative Jason Chaffetz is proof of some sort that the 'Adelson effect' is having an impact, however limited thus far. Conversely, Senator Lesniak sees Adelson's chances of success being away from the federal gaze. "Adelson's threat is real at the state level where his money, used for ad campaigns and political contributions, will impede states from starting Internet gaming or compacting with states like New Jersey to allow their residents to engage in Internet gaming on our sites. "
At the federal level," he added, "it's hard to conceive the New Jersey Congressional delegation not being able to stop his effort since it would result in the loss of one or more casinos and thousands of jobs, but he could be successful in limiting Internet gaming to poker, thus getting Harry Reid's support since Nevada only allows Internet poker."
Joe Brennan, Chairman of iMEGA and a prominent figure in the process of legalising iGaming in New Jersey, believes the threat posed by Adelson is "only due to the kind of money he can pump into the effort if he chooses, but that's really the only threat. Getting 15 state attorneysgeneral to make personal statements about opposition to iGaming is eye-catching, but they have no legislative affect."
The Adelson-backed Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling has announced the endorsement of 15 attorneys-general from states that are known to be opposed to gambling, as well as the signing-up of 39 member organisations, composed almost entirely of faith and family groups.
"It's doubtful that state legislatures or governors will throw away their right to decide this issue," Brennan continued. "Is Sheldon ready for that long game? Is he ready to fight states trying to find more dollars for their budgets by opposing this? Probably not.
"He has little chance of succeeding. Congress is ambivalent about online gaming, and they're not likely to try and unwind what New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware have already done. Adelson will make it interesting, but he won't make the difference."
One organisation determined to ensure that Adelson does not make the difference is C4COP. Mary Bono, whilst never referring to Adelson or his Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling directly, believes that any attempts to introduce a Congressional ban will be dismissed. "A Congressional ban on all Internet gaming is unpopular with the public because it would step on state and individual rights, it would make all Americans less safe; it would be a huge step backward by trying to ban the Internet. There are many ways forward that can provide more protections for American families. Unfortunately, this Congressional gaming ban is the one way to move backward.
"We have a broad range of support from an array of business and consumer focused groups and organisations, and we believe that when Americans and Congress and the Administration realise the problems with a one-size fits all ban, they will overwhelmingly oppose it."
In terms of financial muscle, there would appear to be a significant imbalance between the two coalitions – a situation that would surely put the C4COP at a distinct disadvantage. "C4COP is in a very strong position because they are making arguments based on facts, not fiction," John Pappas suggested. "While Adelson's coalition can make a splash with their outlandish claims, those misrepresentations of fact will not stick around for the long run.
"The biggest challenge for the C4COP and those funding it will be political. Can they exert the same kind of political clout (fundraising) that Sheldon Adelson will unquestionably dump into the upcoming elections. I think this is one of the strongest attributes of the active poker community through the direction of the PPA. We need to show lawmakers that there are voters who care about this issue, and that there are consequences if they don't support players' rights."
It isn't just the C4COP whose greatest challenge will be political, the whole balance of progress for the regulation of iGaming in the US has hinged on how high up the political agenda the issue can ever get within Congress. To date, there have been too many higher priority items at the federal level. Naturally, the tax revenue that would be generated by a regulated market would appear the most compelling angle, as would the creation of jobs and the bolstering of the land-based sector – all things that are likely being monitored on a micro level in the sandbox of New Jersey. But despite times of continuing economic adversity, even this seems beyond any immediate horizon, and there appears some way to go before US politics can undo what it took Jon Kyl and Bill Frist one evening to accomplish with UIGEA in
2006.
Conclusion
How this seemingly endless moral and political see-sawing and posturing is consumed by the observant foreign online operators and regulators is another matter entirely, but John Pappas concludes that it won't have the negative impact of pushing foreign gaming investment away from the future US market. "The US market is just too attractive for gaming companies to completely ignore it. They would be wise to continue to pursue the US while at the same time building up their infrastructure and player base in 'friendlier' markets. One of our strongest messages for US regulation is being able to point to the successful regulation of Internet gaming in Europe and elsewhere. These jurisdictions have already tackled the technological and societal challenges and that should give US lawmakers piece of mind that they are not wading into untested waters."
The US seems undecided on its position on Internet gaming, as do certain of Adelson's allies, who despite being unable to see the opportunity, are willing to follow it into New Jersey. At least Sheldon Adelson knows where he stands, regardless of how plausibly he does so.
For all of his motivations, moral causes and commercial concerns, the only real consideration is his chance of success, and while this indecision on US iGaming prevails, Adelson's crusade will stand a chance of success, however remote, and for that his and his coalition's designs on the industry cannot be ignored.
Mary Bono would like to invite anyone interested in supporting responsible gaming to join this discussion and visit the coalition's website at www.c4cop.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-seeks-land-to-increase-singapore-hotel-rooms
March 20 (Bloomberg) -- Las Vegas Sands Corp. has asked Singapore authorities for more land to increase rooms at its resort in the city-state by about 60 percent after facing almost full occupancy, billionaire Chairman Sheldon Adelson says.
The world’s biggest casino operator plans to add 1,500 rooms to the 2,563-room Marina Bay Sands, Adelson said at a briefing in Singapore today. The company will also add meeting rooms, ballrooms and exhibition spaces to the $6 billion casino resort and largest hotel in Singapore, when the government releases more land, he said.
“We need more rooms,” Adelson said. “We are running at a 100 percent occupancy; on a bad day it’s 98 percent, no other hotel in the world runs like this except some in Vegas.”
Sands is benefiting from Singapore’s decision to overturn a four-decade ban on casinos to spur economic growth. The Marina Bay Sands resort, opened in 2010, lies in an area being developed under a government plan that includes waterfront pedestrian areas, performance spaces, a museum, restaurants and one of the world’s largest Ferris wheels.
Marina Bay Sands “has been a catalyst for enormous tourism growth,” Adelson said. The executive said he met government officials yesterday and repeated his request for more land.
The Singapore resort has about 1.2 million square feet of meeting and convention space and two theaters for Broadway shows, concerts and gala events, according to a company filing.
March 20 (Bloomberg) -- Las Vegas Sands Corp. has asked Singapore authorities for more land to increase rooms at its resort in the city-state by about 60 percent after facing almost full occupancy, billionaire Chairman Sheldon Adelson says.
The world’s biggest casino operator plans to add 1,500 rooms to the 2,563-room Marina Bay Sands, Adelson said at a briefing in Singapore today. The company will also add meeting rooms, ballrooms and exhibition spaces to the $6 billion casino resort and largest hotel in Singapore, when the government releases more land, he said.
“We need more rooms,” Adelson said. “We are running at a 100 percent occupancy; on a bad day it’s 98 percent, no other hotel in the world runs like this except some in Vegas.”
Sands is benefiting from Singapore’s decision to overturn a four-decade ban on casinos to spur economic growth. The Marina Bay Sands resort, opened in 2010, lies in an area being developed under a government plan that includes waterfront pedestrian areas, performance spaces, a museum, restaurants and one of the world’s largest Ferris wheels.
Marina Bay Sands “has been a catalyst for enormous tourism growth,” Adelson said. The executive said he met government officials yesterday and repeated his request for more land.
The Singapore resort has about 1.2 million square feet of meeting and convention space and two theaters for Broadway shows, concerts and gala events, according to a company filing.
If you want to visit Playboy.com from Spore you can bypass the proxy filters using VPN.
How about using VPN to hide one's online gambling if you live in Spore
Bypassing blocks is easy and most gamblers know how to do it.
What is more difficult is funding your gambling account and withdrawing winnings. You need an overseas proxy account in addition to a proxy server.
Termasek got shares in MBS, you noe? Gahman looking after its own interest too much competition is bad for their business, tat the Pappies way.
what a fucking joke,online poker got banned today,no more poker in singapore.these fuckers greed knows no bounds.
If you think for one moment that the government actually cares about the problems caused by on line gambling, this graphic tells the whole story!
Singaporeans lose more money to gambling than any other nation on earth except OZ. Ireland is in a very distant 3rd place.
The only reason why on line gambling is banned is because the Sheldon & Temasick partnership don't get to clip the ticket.
Singaporeans lose more money to gambling than any other nation on earth except OZ. Ireland is in a very distant 3rd place.
The only reason why on line gambling is banned is because the Sheldon & Temasick partnership don't get to clip the ticket.
Attachments
Wow, surprising we beat HK hands down.
That's why I always say PAP is the best! HK is no match for Singapore.
either gambling prohibition is strong in other countries or singapore and australia must be crazy.
look at the chart,number 3 to 10 countries increase relatively steady while singapore and australia tower over the rest.the only reason is singapore and australia is situated close to china and australia is a particularly favourite destination for chao ah tiongs since its the only ang moh country located in asia.
look at the chart,number 3 to 10 countries increase relatively steady while singapore and australia tower over the rest.the only reason is singapore and australia is situated close to china and australia is a particularly favourite destination for chao ah tiongs since its the only ang moh country located in asia.
The Chinese go to Macau you twit.
When it comes to gambling losses in OZ, the biggest culprit is the pokey machines and the people sitting at them the whole day are predominantly white.
maybe.... but when u look at the number of chinks in melbourne and sidney its mindblowing like one third of the people there is yellow asian,and i spend alot of time at the crown casino and burstwood casino,its fucking packed with chinks all the time,and all the table games especially the higher stakes $10,$25,$50 are filled with chinks,fucking hell the high stakes blackjack tables,progressive texas tables,roulette tables are filled with chinks,go to any table and u will see chinks are huuuuuuuuuge gamblers,they throw green chips around like its nothing and have stacks of black chips in front of them. the craziest of all is the bacarrat room,that place is 99 percent chink and stakes are like $100 to $200.maybe pokie machines are the biggest losers but those lazy australians aint got no money working minimum wage jobs.i think per capita chinks outwager outgamble outlose everyone.
but that is nothing compared to MBS lol.MBS u rarely see ang moh in the vip levels,its 99 percent chink and the bacarrat stakes go even higher $100,$300,$500.for me i just play $1/2 or $1/3 poker and the occasional $1 roulette.
qi lai!! qi lai!! qi lai!!
wo men wan zhong yi xin!!mao ze di ren di pao huo qian jin!!qian jin jin!!
[video=youtube;UctriMuXYS0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UctriMuXYS0[/video]
Last edited:
and mind u the chinks in australia are not the same type you find in singapore.the trashy peasant looking types that work in our hawkers and food courts and factories and drive our buses and suck sinkies cpf dry.
the chinks in australia looks more refined and highly educated,the prc women are stunningly beautiful,and they are very well dressed.the men will often sport some expensive looking watch longines or patek phillpe or whatever.
the chinks in australia looks more refined and highly educated,the prc women are stunningly beautiful,and they are very well dressed.the men will often sport some expensive looking watch longines or patek phillpe or whatever.
Similar threads
