Blue Corn Comics -- Stereotype of the Month Entry

Stereotype of the Month Entry
(8/3/05)

By WILLIAM RUSHER

A lot of Americans have been baffled by the proliferation, in recent years, of gambling casinos on Indian reservations in states, or places in states, that had previously been blessedly free of that particular curse. Some states, of course, threw in their lot with the gambling interests many years ago (Nevada comes to mind), and have prospered as a result. They have also suffered the inevitable consequences of such complicity, including transformation of the resident populations and an inevitable rise in organized crime. But recently the problem has metastasized, and afflicted states that haven't the slightest desire for casinos within their borders, whether "owned" by Indian tribes or not.

What's going on here?

An excellent article by Jason Lee Steorts in the Aug. 8 issue of my old magazine, National Review, tells the whole story in much greater detail than is possible in a column like this one. But herewith is a briefer description of the mess.

It all began with the white man's conquest of North America. The roughly 2 million Indians already here were simply brushed aside (or wiped out), and the United States of America was the result. Its subsequent mistreatment of the surviving Indians, who were allowed to continue, more or less, their ancient tribal ways on "reservations," is one of the least palatable aspects of our history as a nation.

But the tribes were treated, juridically, as independent entities, and granted a sort of "limited sovereignty." The U.S. government entered into treaties with them, agreed not to tax them or commercial enterprises established in the reservations, and exempted them from many federal and state laws (e.g. building codes) that were enforced against all other residents.

Eventually, the tribes got into the business of running whatever gambling enterprises the local state laws permitted (e.g. lotteries, and gambling for charitable fundraisers — and, to be sure, casinos, where state law allowed them). But the Indians, pleading their undeniable poverty, wanted to open lucrative casinos even in states where these were banned. In 1988, Congress passed a law intended to permit tribal casinos in states where casinos were legal, but unfortunately the courts have interpreted it as allowing them even in states that prohibit them.

Now, the overall American casino industry generates $20 billion a year. In no time, a lot of savvy white investors began looking around for small groups of people with detectable Indian blood, to be organized into tribes and launched as casino operators on land allocated to them. Steorts estimates that there are now about 300 Indian casinos in the country, being operated, at least nominally, by people who could be prosecuted under state law if they weren't Indians.

The whole scam has attracted an unappetizing crowd of lobbyists with highly dubious connections to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has let this obscene situation develop right under its nose. Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration has been inclined to do anything serious about it. According to Steorts' article, one lawyer, a relative of White House chief of staff Andrew Card, was paid $645,000 by a small group called the Eastern Pequots, who managed to become big enough to qualify as a "tribe" under BIA rules by merging with another group called the Paucatuck Eastern Pequots. (They both live in Connecticut, whose governor and legislature are dead-set against casinos of any type but have no power to stop the newly merged tribe.)

There is much more to the story, and Steorts' article is all over it like a blanket. But the basic point is clear enough: Thanks to the loophole of "limited sovereignty," the nation's Indian tribes are going into the casino business wholesale, financed by greedy white investors and their attendant lawyers and lobbyists, who are far less interested in the welfare of Native American children than they are in the stunning profits that can be made by catering to people in casinos built on Indian land.

William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.

Rob's reply
Ho-hum. A critic who regurgitates what another critic reguritated from the discredited Time magazine report on Indian gaming. Let's take a look:

>> They have also suffered the inevitable consequences of such complicity, including transformation of the resident populations and an inevitable rise in organized crime. <<

Luckily, organized crime isn't a problem with Indian casinos. That fact is pretty well documented.

>> But recently the problem has metastasized, and afflicted states that haven't the slightest desire for casinos within their borders, whether "owned" by Indian tribes or not. <<

Some states don't seem to want Indian tribes within their borders, whether the tribes "own" casinos or not.

>> But the tribes were treated, juridically, as independent entities, and granted a sort of "limited sovereignty. <<

They were treated as independent entities because they were independent until the United States overran them illegally. The courts recognized the tribes' prior sovereignty but limited it; they didn't "grant" the tribes sovereignty.

>> The U.S. government entered into treaties with them, agreed not to tax them or commercial enterprises established in the reservations, and exempted them from many federal and state laws (e.g. building codes) that were enforced against all other residents. <<

Many of the treaties happened before the courts limited tribal sovereignty. Some happened before the United States came into existence.

As for not taxing them and exempting them from laws, that's the whole point of sovereignty. Tribes are sovereign governments just like states. The US doesn't tax states, counties, or cities, so it can't tax tribal governments either. Most federal laws do apply to tribes just as they apply to states.

>> In 1988, Congress passed a law intended to permit tribal casinos in states where casinos were legal, but unfortunately the courts have interpreted it as allowing them even in states that prohibit them. <<

Congress passed a law intended to permit tribal casinos in states where gaming was legal, not where casinos were legal. Any other reading of Congress's intent is sheer speculation, since knowing the minds of several hundred people is impossible.

>> In no time, a lot of savvy white investors began looking around for small groups of people with detectable Indian blood, to be organized into tribes and launched as casino operators on land allocated to them. <<

If by "a lot" Rusher means "a few," maybe. Most Indian casinos are run by tribes with long tribal histories. This seems to be the crux of Rusher's misunderstanding.

>> Steorts estimates that there are now about 300 Indian casinos in the country, being operated, at least nominally, by people who could be prosecuted under state law if they weren't Indians. <<

In other words, being operated by Indians who are following the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as Congress intended.

Rusher's statement is obviously inflammatory. People in every state do things that are illegal in other states. The situation with tribes and states is no different.

>> The whole scam has attracted an unappetizing crowd of lobbyists with highly dubious connections to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has let this obscene situation develop right under its nose. <<

What scam? What obscene situation? Courts established tribal sovereignty almost 200 years ago. Tribes are exercising that sovereignty as Congress intended by opening casinos. Most casinos are run by tribes who were federally recognized long before IGRA passed in 1988.

>> Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration has been inclined to do anything serious about it. <<

Perhaps that's because there's no problem. Rusher certainly hasn't identified one.

Rusher's one lame example
>> According to Steorts' article, one lawyer, a relative of White House chief of staff Andrew Card, was paid $645,000 by a small group called the Eastern Pequots, who managed to become big enough to qualify as a "tribe" under BIA rules by merging with another group called the Paucatuck Eastern Pequots. <<

The two branches of Pequots merged after they split a few years earlier over political differences. No mystery there.

I'm pretty sure a tribe can be any size and still get federal recognition. So the tribes didn't merge to get big enough.

More important, the two branches of Pequots didn't merge to play some trick on the BIA. The BIA ordered them to merge against their wishes. So much for this portion of the "scam."

>> There is much more to the story, and Steorts' article is all over it like a blanket. <<

Yes, I've just explained the "more" part for Rusher. Too bad the Pequots are the only example he gives of tribes pulling a "scam." Since his one example is fatally flawed, so is his article. The so-called scam doesn't exist.

>> Thanks to the loophole of "limited sovereignty," the nation's Indian tribes are going into the casino business wholesale <<

This is like calling the policy of "separation of church and state" a loophole in the First Amendment. A policy that's almost 200 years old and based on the Constitution isn't a loophole.

>> financed by greedy white investors and their attendant lawyers and lobbyists, who are far less interested in the welfare of Native American children than they are in the stunning profits that can be made by catering to people in casinos built on Indian land. <<

Many tribes are financed by outside investors because they don't have the necessary startup capital. Many tribes are helped by outside lawyers because they're dealing with complex legal issues. None of this is a mystery.

That the investors and lawyers may not care about Native children doesn't matter because the tribal members do. Per law (IGRA), tribes can't give more than 40% of a casino's revenue to outside parties. The tribes retain control and use the money as they see fit—usually to help the children in question.

>> William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. <<

Too bad Rusher isn't a Distinguished Fellow of Indian gaming or law. That must be why he misstates the situation so badly.

* More opinions *

. . .

Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.

Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.