The House Financial Services Committee Debates Legalized Online Gambling

Barney Frank’s bill to legalize online gambling will be on the table today in the House Financial Services Committee.

GOP Congressman John Campbell supports the bill, with consumer protections, saying that, “when gambling on an outside site, how do you know they pay anybody any winnings?" Campbell supports allowing Americans to do what they want to do saying “...Americans clearly like to gamble. And they would like to do it on the Internet."

Even though it is illegal, many people gamble on offshore websites or find poker buddies to play in cyberspace.

Campbell, a vocal anti-tax man, does support imposing a tax on Internet gambling. He calls it "revenue that won’t be increasing taxes on anybody. If you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t gamble."

Democratic Congressman Joe Baca opposes the measure. He says there aren't enough protections to keep children and gambling addicts off the sites. Baca's district is home to Indian gaming casinos.

Campbell doesn't think online casinos pose a threat to traditional gambling sites. "There’s an experiential thing about going to Las Vegas or Atlantic City," he says. "There’s an experiential thing for a poker player to look somebody in the eye. So I don’t think this is going to put the brick and mortar gambling establishments out of business."

Full Article here:
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/07/26/congress-considering-legalizing-online-gambling/

US House Subcommittee Adopts Carcieri ‘Fix’ - Faces Uncertain Future In Senate

All right where were we…

Last week a “fix” to a 2009 US Supreme Court ruling limiting the US Department of Interior’s ability to place land in trust for American Indian tribes was adopted by a US House subcommittee and included in an appropriations bill.

While Carcieri v. Salazar has been largely portrayed in the media as a gambling issue, Indian advocates contend the ruling would hinder efforts by tribes recognized after 1934 to have land placed in trust status for any business enterprise and governmental purpose.

Political consultant Jana McKeag, a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma said, ““The sad thing is this decision holds up a lot of applications to place land into trust for all types of businesses and things like schools and health clinics. It places tribes recognized after 1934 in a kind of limbo status.”

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation stated,” Without this language, the standard set forth in Carcieri v. Salazar will be devastating to tribal sovereignty and economic development. Resolving any ambiguity in the Indian Reorganization Act is vital to protecting tribal interests and avoiding costly and protracted litigation.”

Others noted the tumultuous election year atmosphere and how congress will enact appropriations bills.

The leaders of 17 tribal organizations submitted a letter to Senate Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., stating that failing to address the Carcieri ruling would result in “irrevocable damage…to tribal sovereignty, tribal culture and the federal trust responsibility.”

Full Article here:
http://www.gamblingcompliance.com/node/43768

Amador Group File Suit- Claim the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians Aren’t Legit

Friends of Amador County filed suit in the California Eastern District federal court in Sacramento last week claiming the 67-acre site near Ione intended for a 950-slot machine tribal casino isn't legitimate tribal land and that the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians who once lived there were never a tribe with a common language and history.

The tribe, pointing out that the federal government has recognized them since 1985,issued a written statement last Thursday afternoon criticizing the Friends of Amador County as a small group opposed to economic growth in the county.

Construction of the casino has not yet begun, though the project cleared a major hurdle in June when an arbitrator ruled that the casino will pay Amador County $8 million a year, as well as about $16.5 million up front to compensate for impacts including increased traffic and crime.

Jerry Cassesi, president of Friends of Amador County, said it has taken his group ten years to do the research necessary to bring the lawsuit, including searching federal archives for documents that prove that those who lived on the federally purchased land at Buena Vista were the scattered remnants of many tribes, not local Me-Wuks.

But in 2005 a National Indian Gaming Commission attorney issued an opinion that Me-Wuks had lived on the site since at least 1817 and that the land is suitable for a tribal casino.

The suit alleges that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger failed to investigate whether the Buena Vista Rancheria was a legitimate tribe and that he also failed when negotiating a gaming compact with the Buena Vista Rancheria to adequately consider all the negative impacts the casino would have on the area.

But Schwarzenegger spokesman Jeff Macedo believes the governor did a complete evaluation of the impacts via a Tribal Environmental Impact Report saying,"We believe that it complies with the compact requirements.”

Morongo Still Pushing For Legalized Internet Gambling

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians faced skepticism from other gaming tribes this week at the Western Indian Gaming Conference in their effort to gain support for legalized Internet gambling.

Morongo Tribal Chairman Robert Martin expressed is opinion that “time was short” fearing that the increasingly popular online gambling sites will result in lost business to the states gaming tribes.

Congress is currently considering two bills that would end the federal ban on online gambling in the U.S. If online gambling is made legal it is predicted that there would be an explosion of Internet poker sites inside and outside the country.

"You saw what (the Internet) did to the newspaper industry, the record industry. We don't want that to happen to us," Marin said.

Last summer the Morongo proposed legislation that would create a gambling website run by the tribe, card clubs and other consortium members where the state would ge t a cut, but other tribes objected believing all that would do would allow their customers to stay home to gamble, cutting business from their brick and mortar casinos.

But the Morongo are still hopeful but so far they have not found an author for legislation containing the online poker proposal.

A Senate committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue next month

Habematolel Pomo Doin It Right and Morongo Flips

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Compact - Support From All Sides

A week ago today the Assembly passed, by a 68-0 vote, a tribal gaming pact struck between the 205-member Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake and the governor. The compact is contained in SB 89.

The tribe is going by the book and so far they have support from all sides including Stand Up For California which is headed by Cheryl Schmit. “They’re following the right process. They got a local agreement. They got a compact. Now they’re going to proceed to the next step. There’s nothing to be against.” Schimt said. Schmit, a noted gaming critic, praised the tribe for waiting to take their land into trust before pursuing a compact. The Bureau of Indian Affairs granted the trust land just over a year ago

According to tribal chairwoman Sherry Treppa Bridges, the tribe began the project by going to county and local officials first, back in 2005. “It’s not controversial,” Bridges said. “We’ve got county support. We’ve got other tribal support.”

The deal would allow the tribe to operate up to 750 slot machines with an initial plan to roll out with only 349, plus six gaming tables. They plan to build a hotel at some point in the future but the initial facility will operate in a 34,000 square foot temporary structure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morongo Now Supports Legalized Internet Poker in CA

A couple weeks ago the Morongo Band of Mission Indians testified in Washington D.C. against legislation to legalize and regulate Internet gambling in the United States.

They can’t seem to make up their mind but it is clear they want a majority of the action if it is legalized.

Next month the Morongo, who are part of a consortium of tribes, are going to Sacramento to offer the state a stake in the very lucrative Internet gambling market ($347 billion annually is wagered online globally) if they allow Internet poker sites to set up business in the state.

"About 1 million Californians are playing poker offshore right now," said Patrick Dorinson, a spokesman for the Morongo band.

He said the consortium proposes that the state regulate such games in California to ensure their legitimacy and protect players' privacy and that some of the revenue be shared with Sacramento.

State law gives Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate electronic games of chance. A breach of that law could jeopardize the $361 million the state gets annually from its share of slot play, said Cheryl Smith, president of Stand Up For California! Her group opposes gambling expansion without strict regulation.

State Sen. Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) who chairs the Governmental Organization Committee, which reviews gambling legislation, said any legislation would have to permit Internet games without allowing expansion of electronic gambling in casinos that would compete with Indian slots.

Some in the gambling industry claim that legalizing Internet poker in California would lead to the reduction of slot profits in the 58 casinos operated by Indian tribes in the state -- and thus reduce its income from such enterprises.

State officials have no estimate for the potential windfall, but I. Nelson Rose, a professor at Whittier Law School and an expert on gambling law thinks that California Internet poker games could take in $1 billion each year and that if the state took the same 25% cut from poker that it takes from Indian-run slot machines, it could mean an extra $250 million for government coffers.

Feds Settle 13 yr. Old Cobell vs Salazar

And they want to run your health care? This is just another example of why they should not.

The US government agreed yesterday to pay 1.4 billion dollars to settle Cobell vs Salazar. The 13 year old suit against the government was for 100 years of mismanaged land and money it held in trust for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.

The government will also establish a two billion dollar fund to pay for the consolidation of the land under tribal ownership by paying off, on a voluntary basis, the several hundred thousand Indians with interests in the land.

In addition, it will set up a 60 million dollar scholarship fund for Native American students.

The agreement must be approved by the US Congress and the US district court of the District of Columbia.

"Between the accounting claims and the trust administration claims, the plaintiff class will receive approximately 1.4 billion dollars," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement adding that it "has been the subject of intense, and sometimes difficult, litigation. But today, we turn the page. The United States could have continued to litigate this case, at great expense to the taxpayers. It could have let all of these claims linger, and could even have let the problem of fractionated land continue to grow with each generation. But with this settlement, we are erasing these past liabilities and getting on track to eliminate them going forward.”

Elouise Cobell, who first brought the class action lawsuit in 1996, said, "Today we have an administration that is listening to us.” But she also had "no doubt" the settlement award was "significantly less than the full accounting to which the class members are entitled."

Morongo Chairman Testifies Against Internet Gambling

Last week, Robert Martin, Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, testified in Washington D.C. against legislation to legalize and regulate Internet gambling in the United States. Martin told the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, that the bills to legalize and regulate Internet gambling in the United States will put tribes at a distinct competitive disadvantage and asking why congress would want to protect foreign illegal operators to the detriment of existing American jobs.

“The legislation will do nothing but legalize off-shore gaming” at the expense of the “thousands of people” the Indian gaming industry employs, Martin said.

Bills H.R. 2266 and 2267, authored by Frank's, outline the process for pre-qualified companies to obtain licenses to solicit real money customers from the United States for all but online sports bets — and delays regulations of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act by one year.

Martin said tribes were not consulted on the extension adding that, “Jobs are being lost and capital is fleeing our shores every day the 2006 Act fails to be enforced.”

Cheryl Schmit, director of the watchdog group Stand Up For California, said Thursday's testimony shows the tribe is serious about holding its ground.

“They're being very protective of that market and the future of their industry,'' she said. “No one can deny that gaming has been a valuable economic resource to tribes. It's protectionist.”

Those in support of the legislation during the hearing were Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., and Ron Paul, R-Texas; as well as Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety, an Internet safety and help group.

Aftab said the best way to protect families and consumers from “cyber gambling” is to legalize and regulate it, not outlaw it.

Tribe Sues the State – Claims Members Living Off-Reservation Should Not Pay State Income Tax

The Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians has filed suit against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California claiming that the state is violating federal law and tribal sovereignty by imposing state income tax on casino revenues received by members of the tribe who live off the reservation.

California does not collect state income tax from tribal members who live on a reservation and derive their income from on-reservation sources.

In the suit the tribe claims that, "It would be financially, socially and politically very difficult to construct housing on the reservation. If the (personal income tax) is permitted to continue, the tribal council's activities will be consumed by addressing financial, environmental, regulatory and other issues involving construction of housing on the reservation.”

State lawyers said California is entitled to collect income tax from tribal members who do not live on the reservation, regardless of the reasons.

The attorney general's office is seeking a dismissal and in a motion filed last week stated, "Only a tribal member living on her tribe's reservation and earning income from on-reservation sources is exempt from state personal income tax on that income. The Tribe's attempt to explain why its members live off-reservation is irrelevant to a determination whether the exemption applies."

The tribe operates the Spotlight 29 Casino on tribal land near Coachella and Indio in central Riverside County and also has land near the city of Twentynine Palms in San Bernardino County. As part of the lawsuit the tribe claims that the tribe's Riverside County land is taken up by a casino and a parking lot and the San Bernardino County land has almost no public works, and the tribe would have to build all that before putting up houses.

"The Tribe is impacted unlike many other tribes because of the minimal amount of land it was granted by the federal government as a reservation," the suit says.

The state's response challenges the tribe's contention that it has no on-reservation housing options and points out that past proposals by the tribe to expand the Spotlight 29 Casino and to build a second casino, a hotel, an RV park and residential housing on its Twentynine Palms land.

Professor I. Nelson Rose, an expert on tribal and gambling law at Whittier College, said the Twenty-Nine Palms tribe's suit is the first time he can recall a tribe challenging the state's collection of the personal income tax. "But I don't think it's going to fly," Rose said of the lawsuit. "I've never heard of that argument. Second, they built a casino there. It's not necessarily that anyone would want to live there, but it's not a physical impossibility."

A hearing on the case is scheduled for January in Riverside.

POLO/POSY Awarded $250,000 – Compensation for Legal Fees

Preservation of Los Olivos (POLO) and Preservation of Santa Ynez (POSY) have been awarded $250,000 from the federal government through an act meant to aid individuals and groups recover legal fees in litigation against the government. The groups have spent almost $2 million so far in fighting the Chumash’s effort to place 6.9 acres into trust for them. The tribe’s plans for the land include a retail building, cultural center, museum and commemorative park. The property is directly across Highway 246 from the Chumash Casino and Resort.

The money was awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

In January 2005, the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the Chumash’s application to place the land into trust in exchange for a promise from the tribe to sign a memorandum of understanding. The contract was never signed. Santa Barbara County had the right to file an appeal did not do so. POLO and POSY then filed their own appeal.

The Interior Board of Indian Appeals twice concluded that the groups had no standing to appeal the approval of the tribe’s application.

On July 9, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz's ruling in Los Angeles found the fee-to-trust process flawed and supported citizens' rights to appeal.

Matz’ determined that the Interior Board of Indian Appeals had ignored its own binding regulations on standing in the case, and also had not properly considered its regulations on standing in other similar cases before it.

More on Obama Admin Favoring Carcieri v. Salazar "Fix"

It pretty much became official that the Obama admin was in strong favor of a fix to the Carcieri v. Salazar decision when during a media conference call on Nov 4th Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said, “There is a problem here that has to be fixed.”

Kim Teehee, White House senior policy advisor for Native American Affairs, solidified the administrations stance by saying there needs to be a fix so that all tribes can benefit from the land into trust process regardless of their date of federal recognition.

The day after the media call a hearing was held before the House Natural Resources Committee on Capitol Hill, where Donald Laverdure, deputy assistant secretary of Indian affairs at Interior, testified and applauded two bills being discussed. H.R. 3742, sponsored by Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., which would amend the IRA to reaffirm the authority of the secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes, and H.R. 3697, sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., which has a nearly identical intention.

Laverdure said,” the department was, and continues to be, disappointed in the court’s ruling in the Carcieri case. The decision was not consistent with the longstanding policy and practice of the United States to assist all tribes in establishing and protecting a land base sufficient to allow them to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of tribal members, and in treating tribes alike regardless of the date of acknowledgment.”

Not all present at the hearing were so gung ho for a fix. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. said he wants to hear from state and local governments before rushing into a fix.

There is opposition from states rights advocates and other groups such as our local POLO/POSY who have been against and are currently fighting the land into trust process.

Some states’ rights advocates and others have taken strong stances against a legislative fix, fearing the consequences of more lands going back to tribes.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal testified at the hearing that he supports tribal sovereignty, but opposes a Carcieri fix saying that lawmakers should consider whether the pre-Carcieri system is still necessary to achieve the original goals of the IRA. He also made the case that states and localities are harmed in many ways when tribes receive lands, such as by reducing tax revenues.

Blumenthal also predicted that there would be 10 years or more of litigation or if a land into trust fix passes Congress.

Several tribal leaders were present at the hearing and testified that they thought the Obama administration is right in supporting a fix. They believe tribes should not be treated differently and many have historical claims to more land in the United States.

“If this decision is not addressed, there will be ‘haves’ (those who can take land into trust) and ‘have nots’ in Indian country,” said Sandra Klineburger, chairwoman of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, adding that, “Our community knows what it is like to be part of the ‘have nots.”