October 30, 2002
State panel adds to suit against Agua Calientes 
Tribal contributions for Proposition 51 allegedly unreported 
By Jake Henshaw 
Desert Sun Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- State regulators Tuesday offered more evidence of what they said is campaign law violations by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 

The Fair Political Practices Commission already has sued the tribe and now wants to add tribal contributions to the Yes on Proposition 51 campaign to the lawsuit. 

The FPPC said that the tribe failed to disclose a $125,000 donation to aid the campaign to enact this controversial transportation initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot. 

The original suit alleges that the tribe either was late in filing or never filed reports of contributions totaling more than $8.5 million as required by state campaign and lobbying reporting laws. 

Proposition 51 is a Nov. 5 ballot measure that would earmark 30 percent of the taxes on the sale and leasing of motor vehicles for a variety of transportation-related projects, including $120 million for rail passenger service between Los Angeles and Indio. 

One of the stops on the line would be adjacent to the tribe’s casino in Palm Springs. 

The FPPC has filed a similar lawsuit against at least one other tribe, the Santa Rosa Indian Community.The lawsuits set up a legal showdown between the tribes and the state over the power of the state to enforce its disclosure laws on tribes. 

While claiming an exemption from state campaign finance laws, the Agua Caliente tribe has disclosed its contributions as a courtesy to the state, according to its Web site. 

"Under federal law, the tribe is not required to provide this information to the FPPC at all, but the tribe chooses to do so voluntarily," according to a statement on the tribe’s Web site. 

But in announcing the lawsuit last month, FPPC chairwoman Karen Getman insisted there is no exception for tribes in state filing requirements. 

She argued that such an exemption would be detrimental to the state’s political system, especially given the amount of money involved. 

"We think this is not an issue of tribal sovereignty," Getman said at the time. "It is an issue that goes to the heart of California sovereignty." 

In the motion released Tuesday to amend its civil enforcement action against the Agua Caliente, the FPPC said the tribe donated the $125,000 about March 13 to the Planning and Conservation League, the sponsor of Proposition 51, "serving as an intermediary for that contribution." 

PCL reported the donation but the tribe didn’t include it in the report it filed in July on contributions during the first half of this year. 

In its press release announcing the latest legal action, the FPPC also noted that the Yes on 51 Committee has reported receiving an additional $375,000 directly from the tribe in August and September and then refunding $250,000 to the tribe. 

But the FPPC said the tribe doesn’t have to report these contributions on its own until its next major donor report is due Jan. 31. 

Proposition 51 has been controversial because of the potential benefit that some donors to the campaign may receive. 

Agua Caliente chairman Richard Milanovich has defended the donations, saying that such rail service has long been discussed in the Coachella Valley and that the initiative provides a way to accomplish that goal. 

A hearing is set Nov. 26 in Sacramento Superior court on the FPPC’s motion to amend its lawsuit, the FPPC said. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Henshaw is the Sacramento Bureau correspondent for The Desert Sun. He can be reached at (916) 446-1036 or via e-mail at Jake.Henshaw@thedesertsun.com.