Schuetz: On The First Amendment And ‘Disgraced’ Casino Mogul Steve Wynn

“The rich are different from you and me.”

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

“Yes, they have more money.”

— Ernest Hemingway

Howard Stutz is a Las Vegas journalist with over four decades of experience. More importantly, he is a journalist who deserves that title, and, unfortunately, it seems there are few journalists left in the world. He is careful in his work and is painstakingly accurate. He has also seen a lot in a city where a person can see a lot. 

I was interested when I saw his byline on a recent story about Steve Wynn petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This 1964 case strengthened First Amendment protections on speech and press. Mr. Wynn appears not to be a big fan of a free press, and this action is consistent with his effort to weaken Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law in 2015.

What surprised me when I looked at Mr. Stutz’s article was the opening line: “Attorneys for disgraced casino mogul Steve Wynn…”  Wow, disgraced! Disgraced was perfect language and appropriate, in my opinion. My, what a long way Mr. Wynn has fallen.

Howard Stutz once worked for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In 2015, it was understood that the paper had changed hands with a curiously high valuation. The mystery was that no one could figure out who the buyer was. It is unusual when a newspaper is sold, and efforts are made to keep the new ownership secret. Well, a group of reporters at the paper started an investigation, and one of those reporters was Howard Stutz. 

This group of reporters received the 2015 Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for discovering the newspaper was purchased by an LLC owned by the family of Sands Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson.

Another of the reporters receiving this award was John L. Smith, who did commentary for the Review-Journal. In May 2016, Smith resigned after being told by the paper that he could not write about Steve Wynn or Sheldon Adelson.

Mr. Smith had been involved in litigation with both gentlemen. Adelson and Wynn had each sued Smith for libel, and both suits were unsuccessful. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Adelson against Smith was in 2007. Smith defended himself during the trial, which coincided with the time his young daughter was being treated for brain cancer, and while Adelson dropped his suit, the dual burdens of the suit and the health of his child forced Smith into bankruptcy.

Precedent and properties

There is incredible irony in Mr. Wynn’s case involving the Supreme Court. First of all, one of the justices on the Supreme Court who has made noises about wanting to take a look at Times v. Sullivan is Clarence Thomas. One does note that during Thomas’ confirmation hearing in 1991, a Yale-educated lawyer by the name of Anita Hill, who had worked with Thomas, claimed she was sexually harassed by him when he was her supervisor. 

Moreover, the law firm representing Mr. Wynn in the Supreme Court manner is Pisanelli Bice PLLC. The Pisanelli in this firm is James J. Pissanelli, who, way back in 2005, formed Entity Y, LLC. He was listed as the sole officer. Entity Y, it appears, was a special-purpose entity to facilitate making payments to women who claimed Wynn impregnated, raped, exposed them to his genitals, and other rather inappropriate behaviors. Most of these individuals were employees or former employees of Wynn. It is reported that Mr. Wynn funded Entity Y.  

On Jan. 26, 2018, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) broke a story on Mr. Wynn’s alleged sexual misconduct within his company. In the story, it is reported that “dozens” of people were involved, many being employees of Wynn. Additional articles by the WSJ indicated that casino managers enabled Wynn’s misconduct with employees for decades. 

In fairness to Wynn, it should be noted that in a 2017 deposition, Wynn indicated that he was unaware of his company’s sexual harassment policy.

It was Wynn’s contention in all of this that any suggestion that he assaulted any women was preposterous.

It appears that many people believe the preposterous explanation is not attached to any reality.

On Jan. 27, 2018, one day after the WSJ story broke, Wynn stepped down as finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Wynn was Donald Trump’s chief fundraiser. Once again, another individual in Wynn’s orbit who was found liable for sexual abuse and bragging about, on camera, grabbing women’s genitals.

Ten days later, Wynn resigned as CEO and chairman of his company.

A few days before that, the University of Pennsylvania removed Wynn’s name from a scholarship fund he established, and Penn had his name removed from a commons area. Penn also revoked his honorary degree.

Cornell University rescinded its award to Wynn for being a Cornell Hospitality Icon, and the University of Iowa scrubbed Wynn’s name off of its Institute for Vision Research. He had paid $20 million of a $25 million commitment to the facility. The school has no intent of returning any of the money.

If one is curious about how Wynn Resorts felt about Mr. Wynn, I note it proposed he be banned from all its properties.

It was also the case that Wynn Resorts had to pay a $35 million fine resulting from the findings of an investigation into the sexual allegations against Mr. Wynn and how the company handled it. Moreover, the CEO of the company was fined $500,000 for failure to do the right thing when employee complaints were brought to his attention.

Even the Nevada Gaming Control Board became involved in a settlement with Mr. Wynn, which is somewhat ironic, considering that this regulatory agency, staffed by over 200 individuals, overlooked decades of apparent misbehavior by Wynn that was revealed by several reporters from the WSJ. The settlement stipulated a $10 million payment and an agreement to never actively be involved in the industry again. 

So, there sits Mr. Wynn, claiming that any suggestion of him assaulting any women was preposterous, while it seems that much of the rest of the world wants little to do with him. When colleges and universities start ripping your name off things, the whole preposterous argument may not be working.

Who knows what Wynn thinks he will accomplish with this new suit. He may be following someone else’s instructions in filing it, but maybe I am just being preposterous.

Regardless, my best guess is that he will still be described as “disgraced” at the end of this all, and that is because of good journalism.

—

Richard Schuetz entered the gaming industry working nights as a blackjack and dice dealer while attending college and has since served in many capacities within the industry, including operations, finance, and marketing. He has held senior executive positions up to and including CEO in jurisdictions across the United States, including the gaming markets of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Reno/Tahoe, Laughlin, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In addition, he has consulted and taught around the globe and served as a member of the California Gambling Control Commission and executive director of the Bermuda Casino Gaming Commission. He also publishes extensively on gaming, gaming regulation, diversity, and gaming history. Schuetz is the CEO American Bettors’ Voice, a non-profit organization dedicated to giving sports bettors a seat at the table.