Another Stereotype of the Month entry:
Does California really need more casinos?
Tribal cash, not social justice, is fueling expansion deals.
By Marc Cooper
Marc Cooper is an LA Weekly columnist and a visiting professor of journalism at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. His latest book is "The Last Honest Place in America: Paradise and Perdition
March 11, 2007
THE $7BILLION THAT PASSES through California's Indian gaming facilities already surpasses the collective take of all the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip. Our state is home to more than 50 Nevada-style gambling resorts, more than 60,000 slot machines and hundreds of blackjack and poker tables. Throw in the lottery and horse racing, and we're spending six times more on gambling in California than 10 years ago — more than $13 billion a year.
But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic leaders of the Legislature apparently don't think that's enough. They're more intent than ever on pushing through what some critics call the biggest gambling expansion in recent national history. If they're successful, California could soon surpass Nevada as the nation's gambling mecca.
The five major deals that the governor is backing and the legislators are pondering would radically expand the gaming capacity of powerful tribes that already own lucrative casinos. When those tribes won the initial right to open their casinos, they got a sweetheart deal from ex-Gov. Gray Davis and were exempted from kicking back any of their profits to the state. Schwarzenegger's rationale for expanding those deals is that if California renegotiates the compacts, the tribes will get more than the current maximum of 2,000 slot machines per casino and the state will be cut in for a percentage of earnings that could produce hundreds of millions of dollars to offset its lingering budget deficit.
If the deals go through, California will have 22,000 more slot machines and several new casinos.
The expansion deals were blocked at the end of last year's legislative session after Democrats complained that they didn't offer enough guarantees for labor unions to freely organize. Now the governor's back with his proposals, and Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is trying to fashion a bipartisan compromise on the labor issue to get them approved. Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata is sponsoring one of the five expansion bills — the one that would benefit the wealthiest tribe.
Critics of unbridled gambling expansion are alarmed, in part because so much political weight is being thrown behind tribes that are already cashing in big time. The tribe that would benefit from the measure that Perata is carrying — the 400-member Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians, already the biggest landlord in Palm Springs — operates two full-sized casinos that compare with Nevada's finest and would be allowed to open a third under the bill.
"Why do these established tribes need more than one casino?" asked Cheryl Schmit, leader of the casino watchdog group Stand Up for California. "Why would the state grant them multiple casinos?"
The answer, predictably enough, is money. California's gambling tribes have become one of the state's most powerful and muscular political lobbies, pouring about $150 million worth of campaign contributions into political races over the last decade. The Agua Caliente band raised $27 million just to support one ballot measure several years ago. Few politicians dare challenge such odds.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Schwarzenegger initially tried to confront the power of the Indian casino lobby. During his first run for governor, a number of tribes gave more than $10 million to his rivals. When he came into office, Schwarzenegger vowed he would wrestle the tribes into tighter regulation and would force them to pay a fair share of their profits to the state.
But when muscular tribes such as the Agua Caliente called his bluff, showing a willingness to spend about $30 million in funding ballot measures opposed by the governor, even the mighty Terminator had to humbly fold.
With virtually no notice by the media last year, and under direct pressure from the tribes, Schwarzenegger quietly dismissed his tough top tribal negotiator. Then came a disappointing flip-flop, which brings us to the present: The same Schwarzenegger who had railed against the tribes as special interests is now supporting the new packet of expansion plans for his former rivals — and on terms that would be much more favorable to the wealthiest of tribes than those that the tribes had received previously.
The governor's drive for more gambling also comes at a time when two different state studies suggest that California might be wise to view skeptically any plan to bank more of its future on more "no-bust" blackjack tables and additional Blazing 7s machines.
The first comprehensive study by the state's Office of Problem and Pathological Gambling, published last month, reveals a whopping 1.2 million adult compulsive gamblers in the state. That's nearly 5% of the adult population, with another 5% at risk of becoming problem gamblers — with no comprehensive state treatment program even being contemplated. The social and economic costs of gambling addiction are never factored into the cost-benefit analysis of opening more casinos.
Yet another report recently issued from the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office says the Indian gaming industry is poorly regulated, that it only benefits 10% of the state's Native American population and that the governor has greatly inflated the estimate of gambling profits that the state would receive under his proposed expansion plans.
Although the governor claims his plans would bring the state more than half a billion dollars each year in new revenue, the legislative analyst's report disagrees, saying it's "very unlikely" that anywhere near that sum would materialize. Predicting that tribes will be slow in getting new machines up and running, it forecasts a short-term state revenue at more like $200 million annually, a rather insignificant drop in the state's bucket-sized deficit.
Whether the full amount would come in over the long term is dubious as well. After all, the governor already has a record of overselling his casino deals. The $175 million to $200 million a year in state revenue he promised as a result of new gambling agreements he signed in 2004 have so far produced an anemic $30 million.
The governor's office is sticking by his predictions. "Given what the assumptions are in the compacts as to the number of new machines that will be installed, we are very confident in the numbers we have put forward," said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Department of Finance. "As soon as these compacts are ratified, the tribes are ready to ramp up very quickly and get these new devices [slot machines] on line. The tribes didn't enter into negotiations with us to have fewer machines but more."
But a dispute over a couple of hundred million dollars, more or less, against the backdrop of the multibillion-dollar state deficit, begs a much more central and politically uncomfortable question: When Californians voted in 1998 and 2000 to green-light Indian gaming, is the current statewide mega-gambling scheme what they really had in mind?
Probably not. The $100-million political advertising campaign run at the time by a coalition of tribes focused on the moral imperative of offering some form of "self-reliance," some form of societal reparations to marginalized and impoverished Native Americans. Voters thought, for the most part, that they were only ratifying what already existed (or perhaps approving some modest expansion) and that the main change would be the legalization of the modest gray-market bingo parlors and slot rooms that had mushroomed on numerous reservations.
Now it seems the state is confronted with something more akin to moral blackmail. The governor's gaming expansion proposals have nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with boosting the profits of select tribes that, in some cases and under the cloak of national sovereignty, operate like rapacious, privately held corporations. Some California casinos — with tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue — are owned by tribes with fewer than 50 members. (The Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians, for example, which runs a full-service casino near Indio, has only 14 members.)
In most cases, neither the state nor the surrounding community gets any cut of the profits. And some of the more powerful and cash-laden gambling tribes, such as the Agua Caliente, have repeatedly and brazenly flexed their political influence to prevent poorer tribes from opening competing casinos. It's hard to believe a greater justice is being served by further enriching tribes that muscle out poorer competitors.
With its virulent anti-union posture, critics of the Agua Caliente band have dubbed it "the Wal-Mart tribe." Indeed, its insistent refusal to grant labor unions the right to freely organize is what sank the legislative agreement last year on the expansion deals. Forced to choose between two sets of generous allies — the unions and the tribes — Democrats went with the former and tabled ratification of the expansion compacts.
The tribes responded in November by firing a direct shot at the Democrats, stacking $10 million in tribal contributions against some of their candidates. The get-rough tactic apparently worked, as Nuñez is now hustling to broker a deal on the expansion compacts, trying to persuade the Agua Caliente to give a little slack on the labor issue. If successful, the compacts will be approved and juicy tribal contributions will continue to flow to both parties.
Although compacts with fuller labor rights are better than ones without, there's that bigger and more fundamental question that almost no one in Sacramento seems willing to ask: Does California really need any more casinos?
A Native replies
More benefits from gambling lie ahead
March 16, 2007
Re "The great California casino caper," Current, March 11
Marc Cooper's tirade against tribal self-reliance misses the point that gaming produces billions of dollars a year in good salaries and benefits to employees, sales for local businesses, state taxes and direct aid to communities and charities. Now California has an opportunity to do even better.
New gaming compacts, already approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, will provide a significant boost to the state budget, propel local economies and protect the environment and the rights of workers.
The new compact with just our tribe, now before the state legislature, would add nearly $2 billion over 20 years to the general fund — which means more money for our healthcare system, schools, law enforcement and other priorities. The compact again guarantees workers' right to organize under the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance and assures our employees a fair vote on union representation. The new compacts will help to build a brighter future for all of California.
RICHARD M. MILANOVICH
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Oh, my. Another attack on Indian gaming from Cooper, a known critic of the industry:
>> When those tribes won the initial right to open their casinos, they got a sweetheart deal from ex-Gov. Gray Davis and were exempted from kicking back any of their profits to the state. <<
One, it wasn't a "sweetheart deal." At the time, no one knew how successful California's tribal casinos would be. Davis negotiated the best deal he could with the (limited) information he had.
Two, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act forbids taxation or "kickbacks" of Indian gaming revenues. But California's tribes agreed to pay a (small) portion of their revenues into two revenue-sharing funds.
Three, the money earned from tribal casinos isn't "profits" because these casinos are government-run operations, not private businesses.
>> The expansion deals were blocked at the end of last year's legislative session after Democrats complained that they didn't offer enough guarantees for labor unions to freely organize. <<
"Freely organize" is union-speak for card-check systems that let unions bypass a democratic election by secret ballot. Unions already have the right to vote by secret ballot, which equates to the right to "freely organize." What Cooper and union advocates want is the "right" to control organizing efforts without submitting to elections.
See Goldberg: States Shouldn't Use Compacts to Press Special Labor Rules for some straight talk on the unionization issue.
>> When he came into office, Schwarzenegger vowed he would wrestle the tribes into tighter regulation and would force them to pay a fair share of their profits to the state. <<
Actually, Schwarzenegger made his fair-share arguments during his campaign for governor. And critics excoriated him for his misleading, unfair, and racist assertions.
>> Voters thought, for the most part, that they were only ratifying what already existed (or perhaps approving some modest expansion) and that the main change would be the legalization of the modest gray-market bingo parlors and slot rooms that had mushroomed on numerous reservations. <<
This is rubbish. Cooper doesn't know what the voters thought.
Several tribes already had Vegas-style resort casinos when the voters ratified Proposition 1A in 2000. The era of "modest bingo parlors" was already ending.
No one deceived California's voters about this. That's why they've supported tribal gaming on reservations from 2001 to the present.
>> The governor's gaming expansion proposals have nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with boosting the profits of select tribes that, in some cases and under the cloak of national sovereignty, operate like rapacious, privately held corporations. <<
Needless to say, Cooper doesn't have any examples of tribes acting like rapacious corporations or even privately-held ones. He tacitly admits that "select tribes" behave badly only in "some cases," which means they behave well in other cases. And again, there are no profits, since the revenues go to fund tribal government operations.
>> Some California casinos — with tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue — are owned by tribes with fewer than 50 members. <<
His followup statement proves the point about tribal rapacity. The size of a tribe has nothing to do with whether its actions are "rapacious" or not.
>> In most cases, neither the state nor the surrounding community gets any cut of the profits. <<
This may be true of the old compacts, but it's not true of the new ones. Note that Cooper avoids talking about what tribes are giving up in the new compacts. Instead, he focuses on the fact that unions didn't get the right to dictate their elections at casinos.
Here's what Cooper has left out. From the LA Times, 6/29/07:
The Assembly passed compacts that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger struck last year with four wealthy tribes, along with a side agreement addressing child support, gambling addiction, workers' compensation, accounting and arbitration issues.
Under the deals, which Schwarzenegger has signed, the state will get between 15% and 25% of the revenue from the additional machines, possibly bringing in half a billion dollars a year.
Did Schwarzenegger negotiate a good deal or another "sweetheart deal" for California? Don't ask Cooper. He wants to rant about how greedy the tribes are and not whether the compacts help the state.
>> And some of the more powerful and cash-laden gambling tribes, such as the Agua Caliente, have repeatedly and brazenly flexed their political influence to prevent poorer tribes from opening competing casinos. <<
More rubbish. The so-called rich tribes have opposed few casino efforts by poor tribes. Almost none of these efforts have been "competing" casinos, since the poor tribes are generally located outside the rich tribes' markets. And when the rich tribes do oppose a poor tribe's efforts, it's generally been to uphold a principle—e.g., opposing a giveaway of tribal sovereignty.
>> It's hard to believe a greater justice is being served by further enriching tribes that muscle out poorer competitors. <<
That rich tribes "muscle out poorer competitors" is basically a lie.
>> Indeed, its insistent refusal to grant labor unions the right to freely organize is what sank the legislative agreement last year on the expansion deals. <<
Cooper repeats the weasel words "freely organize" because it would hurt his case to say what he means. He undoubtedly knows the public is far more anti-union than it is anti-Indian.
Much of Cooper's screed consists of legitimate arguments against expanded gaming. But the arguments I've highlighted above are biased and stereotypical.
The critics of Indian gaming—and why they're wrong
The facts about Indian gaming
. . .
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.