April 4, 2003
Utes spend money on lobbyists, not political campaigns
By Sharon Theimer
Associated Press Writer
and Brian Newsome
Herald Staff Writer

WASHINGTON – In their rivalry with other gaming interests, American Indian tribes now have an advantage in political giving – they’re exempt from the overall donor limits in the nation’s new campaign law that took effect this election cycle.

But despite the edge, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe believes money is better spent on lobbyists than political campaigns. The tribe has spent less than $1,000 on political campaigns – and that money was spent only on state candidates.

Nationally, tribes spread around $7 million in federal donations in the last election. They do not have to abide by the overall individual donor limit of $95,000 in contributions to candidates, political-action committees and parties. And unlike companies, the tribes can give donations directly from their treasuries.

While unlimited-size donations, known as soft money, are now outlawed for everyone – including the tribes – the campaign-finance rules’ special treatment of Indian nations has some competitors crying foul.

"They can give money unlike any American businesses," said Mike Sloan, senior vice president for the Las Vegas-based Mandalay Resort Group casino company. "It’s a disparity that Congress has created probably unintentionally, and it’s the result of the explosion of Indian gaming."

Pearl Casias, vice chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, agrees.

"They shouldn’t be treated any differently than other organizations or individuals," she said.

Though a strong advocate for tribal sovereignty and Indian rights, Casias believes that shuffling unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns is an attempt to buy sovereignty.

"I don’t think sovereignty can be bought," she said.

But other tribal advocates, including the National Indian Gaming Association, say some in Congress considered putting tribes on the same ground as other donors, but many tribes lobbied to maintain the special status the Federal Election Commission gave them.

Tribal leaders dismiss the criticism as jealousy over Indians’ efforts to raise their political standing.

"There’s a lot of people bashing the Indians because they’re on the scene and they’re active now," said Stan Brand, NIGA counsel. "The minute they have exercised the least bit of political muscle, people want to change the rules on them. ... People have tried, and people have failed."

Jacqueline Johnson, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, said the tribes’ political concerns go far beyond casinos to such issues as economic diversity, improved public services on reservations and protection of their sovereignty.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has focused its efforts on lobbying for those issues, rather than rallying behind particular candidates. The tribe hires lobbyists who arrange for tribal representatives to speak directly with lawmakers and department heads. It joins forces with the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe to fight for the issues the two tribes deem most important.

"We just don’t feel that dumping some money into a campaign effort is the way to go," Casias said. "If they don’t win, there’s a loss (of money) there." She added that the issues the tribe lobbies for are issues that would affect other tribes as well. The Southern Ute Tribe has turned down requests for political contributions from candidates and even other tribes.

Neither the new nor the old campaign-finance law specifically mentions Indian tribes. Rather, their special status comes from the FEC, which views them as "persons" under the rules. Other unincorporated entities in that category, such as homeowners’ associations, could give as the tribes do, but in reality few exist, said FEC Commissioner David Mason.

"I’m not aware of any other organizations who are similarly situated to do this," Mason said of tribal giving.

Tribes gave at least $7 million to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees in the last election cycle, based on an Associated Press analysis of figures compiled by the FEC and PoliticalMoneyLine, a campaign-finance tracking service.

More than $8 of every $10 in tribal contributions in the 2001-02 cycle came from 30 tribes, all with enterprises including casinos.

Reach Staff Writer Brian Newsome at brian@durangoherald.com.