by Howard B. Hanson
A Federal Elections Committee ruling in 2000, which basically allowed tribes to contribute as much as they wished to election campaigns, has greatly changed the landscape of campaign contributions. While tribal governments are “persons” for purposes of disclosure and accountability, they are not subject to the same limits on contributions as “individuals.” So, while other individuals are limited to annual “hard money” contributions of $25,000, tribes are not.
A tribal government can use tribal gaming or government funds to give unlimited “individual” donations of $1,000 each to an unlimited number of candidates. This loophole gives tribal nations an enormous advantage over other donors.
As early as the 1999-2000 election cycle, Native American Tribes accounted for six of the top 10 soft money contributors, and the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Indian Gaming has, since 1990, contributed over $15 million to federal candidates in individual contributions, PAC funds and soft money, $6.5 million of it in the 2002 election cycle alone. That kind of money will buy a lot of ears and “face time” in Washington. Or anywhere.
Just where does all this money come from when evidence of Indian poverty is still everywhere, on and off reservations? From gaming, of course. And that's where some say the problem is. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, enacted in 1988 as Public Law 100-497 and now codified at 25 U.S.C. §2710, establishes the jurisdictional framework that presently governs Indian gaming.
Tribal Gaming Ordinances, 25 U.S.C. 2710 [SEC. 11] covers the Use of Net Revenues from Gaming.
The code says there are only five legitimate uses for gaming revenues, and one of them is not campaign contributions. Here is the specific language:
(B) net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other than –
(i) to fund tribal government operations or programs;
(ii) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members;
(iii) to promote tribal economic development;
(iv) to donate to charitable organizations; or
(v) to help fund operations of local government agencies;
To date, there has been no legal challenge, probably for a variety of reasons. Money in that quantity is like mother's milk to politicians, and very few would voluntarily wean themselves from it, nor would they seek to deprive their fellow legislators of this revenue source. Those groups who might take issue with the practice are, by and large, not well organized or well funded, and lawyers to bring a test case would cost money. Finally, the case for the source of the funds may be difficult to make, since it's not always easy to track the funds when tribal entities donate under various names. Although, most would agree the least we should be able to expect from campaign finance reform is to be able to tell where money is coming from so we have some idea who is trying to support and influence our legislators.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal about individuals or interest groups making contributions to candidates who share their interests and aspirations. In fact, some say it is the ultimate free speech when we put our money where our mouth is and don't just talk about our beliefs but financially support them. But there may be something wrong when tribes use gaming money for that purpose.
Top five recipients of Indian gaming funds in 2002:
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, (D-RI), $93,550
Senator Maria Cantwell, (D-WA) $92,700
Rep. J. D. Hayworth, (R-AZ), $82,700
Rep. Dale E. Kildee, (D-MI) $76,250
Senator Tim Johnson, (D-SD) $63,614
Other top recipients include:
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
Rep. Jay R Inslee, (D-WA)
Rep. Kalyn Cherie Free (D-OK)
Rep. Mary Bono, (R-CA)
Rep. Brad Carson (D-OK)
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO)
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Rep. Dave Camp, (R-MI)
Rep. Norm Dicks, (D-WA)
Rep. Bill Luther (D-MN)
Rep. Joe (Baca, D-CA)
Rep. George R Nethercutt, Jr. (R-WA)
Rep. Rick Weiland, (D-SD)
Rep. Richard M. Romero (D-NM)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senator James M. Inhofe, (R-OK).
Top Tribal Contributors to National Candidates
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; $538,250
Ho-Chunk Nation; $513,000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; $447,000
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe; $401,470
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; $248,800
Morongo Band of Mission Indians; $235,816
Forest County Potawatomi; $200,250
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community; $193,500
Gila River Indian Community Council; $165,264
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; $165,000