Voters hoping for federal campaign finance reform
need to be leery of two groups of politicians: those opposing reform and those
favoring it. Those pushing for greater fairness in elections mainly want it
for the other guy.
John McCain comes to mind. An icon of rectitude to those who follow him on
cleaning up elections, he is also the main protector of one of the most
voracious buyers of congressional influence: the casino-operating Indian
tribes. Why? One possibility: In 2000 he received $42,900 from gambling
tribes--almost twice that of the next-highest recipient--while serving as
chair of the Indian Affairs Committee in the Senate.
Political influence of the tribes nationwide has grown enormously since casino
doors were opened wide by the Cabazon court case in 1987 and the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988. In May 2000, the Federal Election Commission ruled
that tribes are limited to contributions of $1,000 per candidate per
election--which seems like a fair limit on "hard money," i.e. money
that can be given to individual candidates. But the FEC, in a ruling that
makes one want to seek logic therapy for bureaucrats, also did not impose a
ceiling on how much the tribes could give.
That means that every tribe in the U.S.--and there are 556 of them--can give
$1,000 to every candidate for all 535 House and Senate seats. For
two-candidate races in the general election, for example, that adds up to more
than $1 million per tribe. The tribes' combined contribution power is almost
$600 million.
That is a hammer no sensible politician who might think of opposing the tribes
would want to be hit with. If, for example, a lawmaker voted against gambling
interests, a large group of tribes could combine to drown his or her career in
a river of cash.
Under the "reform" legislation that is expected to gain final
passage this week, that rule will remain in place, except that the
$1,000-per-candidate amount will double to $2,000.
Campaign finance reform was promoted to honestly address unfairness in
campaign spending so that no special interest could "buy"
legislative favor. Today there are few special interests richer than the
gambling tribes. They have spread casinos across the nation that generate an
estimated $12 billion annually. And they have a great motive to spend wildly
to influence lawmakers because the tax-free monopolies many enjoy and the
regulations under which they operate depend on favors from Congress.
The rules on tribes are different from those on groups such as Planned
Parenthood or the National Rifle Assn., which organize political action
committees dependent on personal donations from constituents under tight
regulations. Tribes, however, can fall back on their treasury for
contributions. Some of that money can originate from federal funds channeled
to them. In other words, they can convert tax dollars to political
contributions. But the serious money comes from casino profits. This means
that individuals and groups seeking to oppose the expansion of casinos must do
so with one hand tied by laws that severely limit what they can spend.
California now has 46 casinos and 16 on the way. Nationally, there are 289.
During the 1994 election cycle, gambling tribes gave more than $600,000 to
federal candidates and political parties. In 1996 they gave close to $2
million and during 2000 nearly $3 million.
Tribes also are increasing pressure to annex urban land to reservations to
locate new casinos closer to the hubs of cities. Throughout California,
disputes are breaking out as counties and citizens living close to
reservations protest the environmental and infrastructure strains caused by
high-traffic casinos. But Congress has made it the law that the tribes cannot
be sued or held accountable for damages.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told the National Congress of
American Indians that, in view of some recent court cases that have gone
against the tribes, their best course of action would be to seek legislative
help from Congress.
Breyer had it right. If tribes want to continue with the under-regulated,
tax-exempt ka-ching machines that casinos represent, it will mean bending
Congress in their favor, and money will always make that happen.
If those who would oppose them are handicapped by provisions ignored by the
proposed campaign finance reform, then those opponents will have the same
chance of prevailing as they have of winning a slot machine jackpot.