Indian gaming raises questions

Wednesday, October 7, 1998

Indian gaming raises questions

Supporters say tribes benefit financially but opponents claim
casinos could avoid regulations

By Brian Fishman

Daily Bruin Contributor

The vicious debate over Proposition 5, the Indian Gaming
Initiative, has hit UCLA.

Carole Ambrose Goldberg, a UCLA law professor who recently
appeared in a Proposition 5 television ad, is on the leading side
of the debate.

Polls show that 63 percent of voters plan to support the
initiative.

"Gaming has wound up dramatically improving the lives of people
on reservations," Goldberg said.

Proposition 5 will make electronic gambling machines legal on
Indian reservations, quashing the debate as to whether or not they
should be allowed in California casinos.

In 1987, Indian gaming was legalized in states with other types
of gambling. With the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
one year later, each state was required to sign compacts with
tribal casinos.

However, the State of California refuses to sign compacts with
tribes using electronic gambling machines, on the premise that they
are too much like slot machines, which are illegal in
California.

Many Indian tribes contend that such machines are based on a
lottery and are therefore legal. Many tribal casinos have been
operating such machines despite the state’s attempts to shut them
down.

Those against Proposition 5 claim the proposition will allow
tribes to open and operate virtually unregulated gambling
operations throughout the state.

"The tribes don’t want you to have the right to vote on gaming
in your community," said Cheryl Schmit, director of Stand Up for
California, a group against Indian gaming.

Of the 107 federally recognized tribes in California, 40 have
negotiated with the federal government in order to purchase land
and extend their reservations. This land would be available for
Indian gaming, said Schmit.

Currently, tribes must present plans to surrounding communities
before building on such sites.

Schmit’s group, which has defeated seven such plans in the past,
said community groups will lose the ability to oppose the operation
of tribal casinos if Proposition 5 is passed.

Proposition 5 would require that tribes proposing to build
casinos on non-tribal land obtain only the signatures of both the
secretary of the interior and the governor of California to do
so.

While Schmit sees these restrictions as insubstantial, Goldberg
said that getting both signatures is "nearly impossible."

But Goldberg pointed to the positive economic effects as a
reason to support Proposition 5.

"The worse off a tribe begins economically, the more drastic
their economic gains are (after gaining a casino)," Goldberg
said.

Economic development through gambling and its ability to help
Indians achieve self-sufficiency are the key issues in this debate,
said Natalie Stites, president of the American Indian Student
Association (AISA) at UCLA.

"As sovereign nations, they should be able to determine how they
are going to develop economically," Stites said.

Dan Nelson, a spokesman for NO on 5, agreed that
self-sufficiency should be the ultimate goal, but that gambling is
not the means to that end.

"Our campaign is not against their right to self-sufficiency,
it’s against Prop. 5 and unregulated gaming," Nelson said.

Indian tribes have said that resistance to Proposition 5 by
groups like Nelson’s has been bankrolled by Nevada casinos hoping
to stifle competition.

Goldberg accused Nevada casinos of hiding behind "front"
organizations.

"It wouldn’t be very convincing for Nevada gambling interests to
mount a campaign against gambling," Goldberg said.

Schmit disagreed.

"Tribes try to say the evil Nevada money comes in, but it’s been
the citizens that have helped stop this thing," Schmit said, adding
that her group is a citizen-based organization.

Taxation has also become an issue, as Proposition 5 detractors
say gambling money spent in tribal casinos will essentially leave
the state, because income on reservations is untaxable.

Schmit said that money spent in Nevada casinos is actually
better for the California economy because many Nevada casinos are
owned or managed by California companies.

"For every dollar spent in a Nevada casino, 75 cents comes back
to California," Schmit said, "whereas (it’s) only 25 cents for
Indian gaming."

Goldberg said that Indian gaming cannot be taxed, but she
pointed out employees who do not live on the reservation may be
taxed.

The economic benefits for communities surrounding tribal casinos
will be substantial, Goldberg said, citing Palm Springs as an
example of how a tribal casino can invigorate local economies.

Surprisingly, some tribes have come out against Proposition 5,
though Stites asserts that 95 percent of California Indians support
it.

"When you’re dealing with tribes, you have to remember you’re
dealing with different ethnic groups with different political
views," Stites said.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]