To Per Cap or Not to Per Cap, That’s the (Ballot) Question

Members of the Gila River Indian Community, located near Phoenix, soon will be voting on whether the tribe’s government should provide per capita payments using revenue from its three Community casinos. Since the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act specifies the terms for revenue distribution that must be met before a tribe can elect to provide per caps, which include providing for governmental services and a tribe’s general welfare, such payments actually are relatively rare. More than three-quarters of gaming tribes don’t provide them.

Potential Gila River voters are split on the issue. Some believe gaming revenue is best used to provide for public services in what remains a highly impoverished area; others are concerned that thousands of Community members who live off-reservation are not currently receiving the benefits of gaming. If the ballot initiative passes, the Community, which has about 20,000 enrolled members, most likely will become the largest tribal nation that provides per caps.

As we’ve mentioned in this space, there’s a critical difference between a tribe with a few dozen or several hundred members electing to provide per caps and one with many thousands of members. Do the math. Contingent on total casino revenue, the first tribe may be able to provide thousands of dollars per month to its members; the latter tribe may only be able to provide a few hundred dollars per year. The most important question for tribal members voting on the initiative is whether to use gaming revenue in such as way as to obtain the most “bang for the buck,” which would come through leveraging the power of government to provide public or collective goods that benefit the entire Community.

For more, see this June 19 article in the Arizona Republic.