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.

Stevens Re-Elected as NIGA Chair

Ernie Stevens, Jr., will serve a fourth two-year term as the chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association.

With close to 200 member tribes and numerous gaming industry affiliates, NIGA serves as a lobbying group for tribes and tribal interests, particularly at the federal level. It also collects and disseminates information about Indian gaming and serves as a fulcrum for intertribal communication.

Lobbying: It’s All Relative, Isn’t It?

In the last year, USA Today reports here on March 31, the gaming industry lobbied Congress to the tune of $25 million. The American Gaming Association, which represents commercial casino interests, spent $900,000. With friends in high places, the AGA’s president, Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., expects the industry to have success in the coming year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-NV, has been a long-time supporter of commercial gaming (for obvious reasons); House Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., heads up the House Judiciary Committee. Opponents of a 2006 ban on Internet gaming are lining up to see it reversed.

Yet it’s telling that Fahrenkopf’s group feels unfairly tarred by the Jack Abramoff scandal. "Even though we didn't have anything to do with it, we all tend to get labeled," he said.

The Indian gaming industry, of course, has taken the real heat from Abramoff’s transgressions vis-à-vis a small number of tribes. Although Abramoff bilked them out of millions of dollars, tribes – not the commercial industry – have been scrutinized for their attempts to lobby and influence the political process.

Tribal gaming interests have pulled back in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, as evidenced by a significant drop in spending on lobbyists. In the last year, tribes lobbied at the federal level to the tune of $16 million –- a 25% drop over the prior year.

We predicted this outcome in our July 2006 article in the Gaming Law Review. We discuss that and more in “The ‘Tribal Loophole’: Federal Campaign Finance Law and Tribal Political Participation After Jack Abramoff,” Gaming Law Review 10 (2006): 230-39.