Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info

Stereotype of the Month Entry
(1/18/06)


Another Stereotype of the Month entry:

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

LOWRY/The Tribal-casino scandal

By RICH LOWRY

Political contributions from Indian tribes soaked in gambling revenues have increased exponentially in recent years, from a mere $2,000 in 1999 to more than $7 million in 2004. But the trend has suddenly reversed. Now it's the politicians giving money to tribes, as dozens of pols who happily took dollars from Jack Abramoff-associated tribes hurriedly return the cash or hand it over to charity.

This strange turnabout was predictable to anyone who has followed the connection around the country between wads of gambling money and sleazy practices in government. "We're seeing what has happened at the state and local level come to Washington," says the Rev. Tom Grey of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. It's no accident that the Abramoff scandal hit the national GOP after it spent years catching up to Democrats in terms of battening on gambling dollars. According to the Web site opensecrets.org, Republicans got just 19 percent of Indian gambling donations in 1994. So far in the 2006 election cycle, Republicans are splitting such contributions with Democrats evenly.

Giving back money is nice. But one wonders: What did these members of Congress think these contributions were for, if not advancing the cause of an Indian gambling industry that has always had a strong whiff of the scam about it? Congress is going to rush to nominally clean itself up in exercises of symbolic self-flagellation, like reducing the lobbyist gift ban from $50 to $20, but it won't address the root of the scandal unless it reforms the absurd, inherently corruptible law and practices surrounding the creation of new money-minting Indian casinos.

Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act in 1988 basically with the intention of letting tribes run bingo games. Armed with the opening presented by the act and with the fiction of tribal sovereignty, tribes opened casinos that allowed them to undertake the old-fashioned business of buying politicians. The growth of tribal casinos exploded. There are now 400 of them in more than half the states in the country.

"What state governments and Congress don't think about is that if you open the door a crack, because of the tremendous amount of money that legal gambling brings in, there will be entrepreneurs who will push it wide open," I. Nelson Rose of Whittier Law School in Southern California told Congressional Quarterly Weekly. The word "entrepreneurs" is overly generous, since gambling doesn't always attract the most high-minded businessmen. Initially, commercial gambling interests in Las Vegas opposed the tribes as competitors. Then, Las Vegas realized it could get a cut of the action by running casinos for tribes. Harrah's has been pushing to open a casino in West Warrick, R.I., in conjunction with the Narragansett Indians.

The Indian casino business is flagrantly detached from its original justification of letting supposedly sovereign nations govern themselves on their own land. Since reservations tend to be in low population areas, there has been a push, called "reservation shopping," to open casinos closer to urban areas. In an extreme example, Wisconsin-based tribes want to build casinos in the Catskills in New York. There are at least 30 proposals for off-reservation casinos around the country, and roughly 200 petitions for new "tribes" to be recognized by the federal government so they can go into the casino business too.

With every new tribe and casino, there is more loot to be poured into politics, if not through Jack Abramoff, through more discreet lobbyists. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., sent a letter last week to President Bush urging him to order a moratorium on the opening of more tribal casinos. In the meantime, Congress can take up legislation reforming the much-abused 1988 Indian gambling law. This effort, obviously called for on public-policy grounds, has the disadvantage of not having any obscenely moneyed interests behind it.

Members of Congress will probably cluck over the Abramoff scandal, wait for things to cool off and enjoy it when the contribution stream keeps running the way it usually does: from Indian casinos to them.

Rob's reply
>> What did these members of Congress think these contributions were for, if not advancing the cause of an Indian gambling industry that has always had a strong whiff of the scam about it? <<

The whiff of the scam is in Lowry's mind only. Evidently he can only imagine a scam, not point to a real one.

>> Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act in 1988 basically with the intention of letting tribes run bingo games. <<

The intent of IGRA was to build tribal economies. Congress didn't include any language limiting tribes to bingo games, as it easily could have. In fact, there was a whole section dealing with Class III gambling (slot machines and table games), which is proof that Congress envisioned tribes conducting these types of gaming.

>> Armed with the opening presented by the act and with the fiction of tribal sovereignty <<

It's not a fiction. Let's put it this way: It's no more a fiction than any other political concept, like freedom or democracy.

>> tribes opened casinos that allowed them to undertake the old-fashioned business of buying politicians. <<

The first major casino opened in 1993. The tribes' political contributions were a grand total of $2,000, by Lowry's own admission, in 1998. Big deal. That's a drop in the bucket compared to other industries' donations.

Mark Trahant sets Lowry straight in Today's Custer Wears a Different Hat (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1/22/06):

Consider just how much is spent by tribal gaming interests lobbying — about $7.2 million in 2004. Recent figures from the Center for Responsive Politics show that as an industry, Indian gaming spends less lobbying than other casino interests (about $11 million) and less than any other significant economic interest, such as car dealers ($8.2 million).

>> The word "entrepreneurs" is overly generous, since gambling doesn't always attract the most high-minded businessmen. <<

Which industry does? Defense (Halliburton, etc.)? Oil (Standard Oil, etc.)? Energy (Enron, etc.)?

>> The Indian casino business is flagrantly detached from its original justification of letting supposedly sovereign nations govern themselves on their own land. <<

Wrong. The vast majority of Indian casinos still operate on traditional reservation land.

>> Since reservations tend to be in low population areas, there has been a push, called "reservation shopping," to open casinos closer to urban areas. <<

See The Facts about Indian Gaming—Corruption for more on the subject.

>> In an extreme example, Wisconsin-based tribes want to build casinos in the Catskills in New York. <<

Not a single out-of-state casino exists now, nor is one close to being approved.

>> There are at least 30 proposals for off-reservation casinos around the country, and roughly 200 petitions for new "tribes" to be recognized by the federal government so they can go into the casino business too. <<

Proposals are next to worthless. They're nothing to get in an uproar over. The federal government has recognized only 20 tribes since 1988, or about one a year. With the current hostility toward the expansion of gaming, the rate is unlikely to increase.

>> With every new tribe and casino, there is more loot to be poured into politics, if not through Jack Abramoff, through more discreet lobbyists. <<

With every new factory, plant, mill, refinery, construction site, franchise, office, etc., there's more loot to be poured into politics. It's called capitalism, buddy. Deal with it, but don't act as if tribes are playing anything other than the standard lobbying game.

>> Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., sent a letter last week to President Bush urging him to order a moratorium on the opening of more tribal casinos. <<

For more on Wolf's prejudice against Indians, see The Critics of Indian Gaming—and Why They're Wrong.

>> Members of Congress will probably cluck over the Abramoff scandal, wait for things to cool off and enjoy it when the contribution stream keeps running the way it usually does: from Indian casinos to them. <<

Actually, the contribution stream comes from every industry, not just Indian gaming. Singling out the Indian gaming industry as if it's different is arguably racist.

Related links
The facts about Indian gaming
The facts about tribal sovereignty


* More opinions *
  Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment
  Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail
  See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media
  Political and social developments ripped from the headlines



. . .

Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info


All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.

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.