Money, Money, Money

So why do the compacts being voted on in the legislature have so much support from the Democratic Majority? Money in the form of campaign donations from tribes may have a lot to do with it. The Associated Press reported that Democratic lawmakers sponsoring bills to approve the compacts received $1.6 million in tribal donations, either directly in the form of campaign contributions or through independent committees that supported them.

Here are a few numbers:

Dean Florez, D-Shafter, collected just over $100,000 from gaming interests in the 2005-06 election cycle

Assembly GO, Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, pulled in $68,100 in gaming money over the same period.

Two freshmen Democratic senators who were elected last year and are carrying bills this year - $540,000

Senate Don Perata, D-Oakland - $74,000 from tribes since 2000

Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego - $49,000 from tribes since 2000

"The money certainly raises questions as to why so many lawmakers are supporting these compacts when so many important questions have gone unanswered," said Jack Gribbon, California political director for Unite Here

"The tribe believes very strongly that our contribution is part of a contribution, in a legal way, to the political process," said Jacob Coin, director of public affairs for San Manuel. "I will say whatever we contributed pales in comparison to what we stand to contribute to the people of California under this compact. It's in the billions of dollars between now and the year 2030."

The money the tribes have made over the last 5-6 years has allowed them to become very powerful players in the political process. The courts are now beginning to have to look at tribal sovereignty and how the rules may have to change when it comes to campaign donations and as I stated before, Tribal Sovereignty is a process in the works that may never end.

In 2003, the Fair Political Practices Commission brought lawsuits against the Santa Rosa Indian Community and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians charging that the tribes needed to report their campaign contributions and comply with its reporting and disclosure requirements. The suit against the Agua Calientes alleged that the tribe failed to disclose nearly $10 million in donations from 1998 and more than $400,000 in 2002. A wide range of candidates and committees benefited, the agency says. The tribes contended that, due to their sovereignty, they didn’t have to comply with the 1974 Political Reform Act. The judge in the Santa Rosa case sided with the tribe but the judge in the Agua Caliente case sided with the commission. Later, in a 2-1 decision, the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the court ruling that favored the Santa Rosa Indian Community. Two judges of the district court said the state had a constitutionally-protected "right and duty" to protect the political process to prevent corruption and to keep the public informed. The other judge said he agreed with most of the points cited by the majority. However, he said the state has been "divested" of any right to sue tribes because the U.S. Supreme Court has protected tribal immunity unless abrogated by Congress. A state court can't rule otherwise, he concluded. A state's "sovereign power does not encompass the power to sue an Indian tribe because the United States Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutional power to declare what federal law is, has declared that Indian tribes are immune from suit except where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity," he wrote.

The Agua Caliente appealed to the California Supreme Court who last December ruled against them. By a 4-3 vote, the court said the tribes can be sued for failing to report their contributions under the state's campaign finance laws. But the court said state sovereignty trumped tribal sovereignty. The opinion by the four justices called the tribe a "major donor to political campaigns," with over $10 million in donations and fines at issue in the dispute. "Although concepts of tribal immunity have long-standing application under federal law, the state's exercise of state sovereignty in the form of regulating its electoral process is protected under the Tenth Amendment and the guarantee clause [of the U.S. Constitution]," Justice Ming W. Chin wrote on December 21.

Carole Goldberg, a law professor at University of California in Los Angeles said this regarding the ruling. "This decision flies in the face of federal law guaranteeing tribes immunity from lawsuits without their consent, as well as language in the U.S. Constitution committing Indian affairs to the federal government, not the states.”

My opinion is that this seems to be evidence of further erosion of tribal sovereignty in the US and as the tribes venture further into casino expansions and off-reservation commerce it may erode even more. Is this the price they pay to be in the very lucrative gambling industry? Is it fair? Whats your opinion?

Full articles here:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1442
http://www.ascendgaming.com/headline_detail.htm?headline=y&id=6832 http://www.indianz.com/News/show.asp?ID=2003/04/28/donations http://www.indianz.com/News/2004/005046.asp http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/017555.asp