Haves vs. Have-Nots

With so much at stake in the current political environment and so many different interests to represent, the most prominent tribal organization in California may be showing signs of an intertribal divide between “haves” and “have-nots.” (We discuss the haves vs. have-nots idea at length in our book, Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise.)

The California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), a lobbying and advocacy organization—in other words, a tribal special interest group—decided early on that membership would not be limited to gaming tribes. Now CNIGA’s membership is split, numerically, between its gaming (35) and nongaming (30) members. According to a recent article in the San Diego Tribune, it turns out there also may be a growing divide in terms of organizational perceptions and representation, as well.

Much of the organization’s budget comes from dues paid by wealthier gaming tribes, while nongaming tribes have been accused by some of dominating CNIGA’s meetings and perhaps, its political agenda. Should some of the heavy hitters, including the Agua Caliente near Palm Springs, the Pechanga near Temecula, or the Morongo of eastern Riverside County, decide to bolt CNIGA, its political efficacy may be undercut. Conversely, should CNIGA decide to change its internal rules to marginalize nongaming tribes, they too might leave.

Such fissures are not uncommon in member-based interest groups, but few have as much at stake—or as limited alternative options in terms of maintaining political clout—as do the tribes in California.

Read more here.