Tribes Subject to Campaign Finance Law, Part II

As we discussed in our most recent post, in a narrow 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court recently held that Indian tribes are subject to the state’s campaign finance disclosure law. The ruling affirmed the ability of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission to sue the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for failing to comply with the law’s reporting requirements.

The issues the case presented were described in Michael Gardner’s December 22nd article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, in which Steve was quoted.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree to hear the case on appeal, two points to bear in mind: first, as the dissent argued in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally has rejected the idea that any authority other than Congress or a tribe itself can abrogate or waive a tribe’s immunity from lawsuit; and second, when Congress doesn’t speak to the matter, the assumption is that Congress intended tribal sovereign immunity to apply – not the other way around.

Nevertheless, if the Supreme Court takes on this case, tribes across the U.S. undoubtedly will watch it closely, for not only will the case signal the direction the Roberts Court will take on matters related to tribes, but the relative breadth or narrowness of any opinion will have implications not only for how California, but also other states, can regulate tribal campaign contributions.

The case is Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court, S123832.