Gregoire's gambling compact should shock us all
Since my return to Seattle more than seven years ago, I have noted many changes in the state and local political cultures. The most disappointing has been the degree to which supposedly "liberal" governors, legislators, mayors and others accept as business-as-usual policies and practices which are shockingly self-interested and against the interests of a majority of their constituents.
At state level, there are the "tax expenditures" — loopholes and subsidies — extended to individual companies and entire sectors which have cut a huge hole in the state revenue base, which then is replenished with largely regressive taxes on those least able to pay. There are the almost automatic grantings of pay increases and other benefits sought by powerful public-employee and teachers' unions. And, of course, the allocation of massive public funds to cost-ineffective public works boondoggles such as the Allentown trolley and Sound Transit light rail.
Having grown inured to such actions, I nonetheless was shocked by Chris McGann's story in the Friday morning Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporting on Indian tribes' campaign payoffs of $650,000 to the state Democratic party, and $49,000 directly to Gov. Chris Gregoire, in return for Gregoire's 2005 killing of a gambling compact which could have brought more than $140 million in annual revenues to the state. The compact Gregoire renegotiated with the Spokane tribe brings no revenue to the state. (The tribes' $650,000 contributions to the state Democratic party constituted more than a third of the total $1.6 million the party has contributed to Gregoire's campaign war chest since 2004).
The casino culture has changed dramatically the overall tribal culture of many Indian tribes in western states — and not for the better. Some tribes refuse casinos on their lands, despite the revenues they could bring. But that is another matter.
The big headline in the tribal payoff to Gregoire is that 22 other states collect big money annually from tribal gambling. Tribal-casino revenues in Washington amounted to $1.34 billion last year. In many states, attempts are being made to change the formulas in state-tribal compacts so as to bring greater revenues to the states. Washington has taken an opposite course, leaving the state empty-handed while tribes and casino operators profit big time.
As McGann's piece pointed out, the compact negotiated by Gregoire includes a provision allowing tribes to expand casino operations without revenue sharing. Twenty-seven of the state's 29 federally recognized tribes signed onto the Spokane compact.
McGann's well researched piece quoted Prof. William Thompson, a University of Nevada at Las Vegas authority on tribal gaming, as stating that "she [Gregoire] shouldn't take any campaign money [from tribes], nor should her political party, and it smells too quid pro quo.... The [federal] 1988 Indian Gaming Act dictates how the tribes may spend the money they get from gambling. There is nothing in there that allows them to spend the money on political campaigns." Beyond that, Thompson said, the Legislature should have been involved in any such compact.
State Sen. Ken Jacobsen, Democrat, Seattle, stated that "by the time anybody in the Legislature heard about it, it was a done deal ... That's a lot of money we gave them [the tribes] without getting anything back."
Wait a minute, Sen. Jacobsen: Gregoire and Co. got plenty back. It just didn't benefit anyone else in the state.







Comments:
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 10:23 a.m. inappropriate
Good for Gregoire: Hey, the governor is looking the big picture here. Why are folks so critical (whether or not there's a payoff)? The tribes employ thousands and provide health care to their own (reducing the burden on other state taxpayers, to be sure). I don't gamble and think it's a bad deal, especially when the economy could go south here. But destination-based gambling (especially offered with conference centers, restaurants and resort services) is hardly the worst kind of gambling. David Brooks discusses that insidious vice of state governments in a recent column.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 11:42 a.m. inappropriate
Don't Leave Out the Judiciary!: What, no mention of the corrupt judiciary in Washington these days? Some greedy politicians wear black robes, and sit on the Supreme Court. They are bad news.
What a judge is supposed to do is consider the legal arguments the parties raise. The judge is then supposed to rule, based on the law, in a way that is fair to both sides. Integrity is the key. The justices on Washington State's Supreme Court don't operate that way. They do not treat all parties before them fairly, nor do they discharge their responsibilities in an honest manner. What they do instead is abuse their authority. They ensure that citizens can not prevail - no matter what the law says - in certain cases that arise out of unlawful government conduct.
When rich entities are benefiting from unlawful acts of governments, those governments WILL prevail in court (due to biased conduct by the justices).
The despicable technique the justices employ to give unjustified wins to the litigants they favor involves ignoring the real claims citizens assert, and instead basing their opinions on fictional arguments the citizens did not raise. The justices dismiss the straw man "claims" they invented using ringing rhetoric.
The reason the justices lie about the claims in these cases is greed. They do what they do so PAC money either stays on the sidelines during their reelection campaigns, or, if they need PAC money to head off a strong challenge they'll get as much required. That PAC money will be spent both in favor of their candidacies, and against the candidacies of their challengers. An example of this was in 2006, when a statist proxy (the SEIU) filled PAC's that spent for the incumbents.
Here is an example from 2005 where the Washington Supreme Court justices repeatedly lie about the substance of the citizens' claims. The lawsuit involved issues relating to whether two local governments implemented statutory taxing authority grants properly. When the opinion came out [b]none[/b] of the citizens' legal arguments had been addressed. The third posting in that thread describes how the justices misrepresented the claims the citizens raised. Links are in that post to the briefing (where the real legal arguments are set out), and to the opinion containing the false arguments the majority attributes to the citizens.
Using that technique, the justices helped their government friends and denied substantial tax refunds to tens of thousands of families.
The incumbents pretty much assured themselves lifetime tenures by acting dishonestly. The 11/19/07 posting in this thread identifies the PAC funders who want ST to have unlimited taxing rights. That group is the group the justices pandered to.
The justices could not care less about the significant financial damages their lies caused, and continue to cause, for many citizens. Moreover, they've sent the clear signal to every entity making money off of local government taxing and spending that they will not apply the law in favor of citizens going forward.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 1 p.m. inappropriate
Good for the tribes: Gregoire is always looking at innovative ways to support communities of color whether it is her health initiatives or her support of local gambling casinos. The author's "revelations" seem one-sided to me. Politics, in the end, is a compromise. Finding ways to assist Indian tribes in providing for their people seems like a top priority to me. Old style politics may be going by the wayside with Obama, but until it does we have to take care of people one way or the other.
Good for Gregoire and good for the tribes
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 1:05 p.m. inappropriate
Indian windfall: Given the embarrassing century-plus lack of Federal accountability at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I'm sure these Native Americans feel a sense of justice and balancing of their account, and with some justification.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 2:06 p.m. inappropriate
Native Americans have been badly treated in the past. Tribal casinos have unleashed a torrent of revenues which benefit tribes now. But the same tribes can continue to benefit while still contributing a small share of their casino gambling revenues to the state. The $140 million annually which would have flowed to the state would have left the tribes with ample resources. All other states with tribal casino gambling receive such revenues. The governor's---any governor's---sellout of the public interest, in return for political money, is no more acceptable on behalf of casino gambling interests than on behalf of any other interest.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 4:19 p.m. inappropriate
For every Tribal Casino, auction off a license of a non-tribal Casino: Competition is a good thing. For every Tribal Casino Facility , the State should auction off a license to operate a Non-Tribal Casino and Tax it. Allow exemptions for Smoking and slots and may the best model win.
Please let the public know how a Governor who has the exclusive authority to negotiate a compact/contract is allowed to take virtually unlimited amounts of money from the group she is negotiating with. Now sub in SEIU, WEA or any other group where the Governor holds sway over the process directly or through negotiating team appointments. Bought and paid for on the backs of the taxpayers of the State of Washington.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 5:11 p.m. inappropriate
Do you want State to act as middleman?: Buried in the middle of the P-I's report is how much tribes with casinos contribute directly to their local communities: "...millions to local governments for local infrastructure programs...over $100 million to health and education programs around the state..." Most people probably feel this is better than having the State act as a middleman.
Posted Fri, Jun 13, 8:01 p.m. inappropriate
The State as a middleman, no, how about an honest broker for a change.: If the model you wish to establish is that individuals can pick and choose when, where and how much public support money they will distribute like the tribes do then fine. Unfortunately governments do not work like that, they rely on income streams and resources that they can bond against to get the infrastructure, schools and services that the community wants and needs. Homeowners and taxpayers are compelled to do so, by law. The tribes pick and choose at will, not even close to being the same. The only mitigation that the compact mandates is 2% of the revenue off of class 3 games (table games) be divided up amonst the communities that are directly impacted by the Casino.
This deal was a real loser for the Taxpayers of Washington, Gregiore is personally being enriched as a result of her official actions in office, she should be removed in November.
Posted Tue, Jun 17, 2 a.m. inappropriate
Native Perspective: Yup those greedy Indians sold 98% of there homeland for 50 cents per acre in 1855-56 to Governor Stevens ... wrote the contracts in a foreign laungauge, and used interperters of the Chinook Jargon... a trade laungauge of 1,000 words... Yes would you sell your home written in spanish and under laws of Cuba today???? that is what happend to the tribes of WA !
Timber Harvest Quinault Reservation - 1900-1990 = 90 years $1 billion in logs taken off the rez only paid %25 cents on the dollar.
Cobell v Kempthorne - $100 billion dollars go into the US treasury and unaccounted for since 1887 The Dawes Act. Would you allow your bank to collect your monies and never send an accurate statement for 150 years? When audited numerous times by congress say who cares it is only 500,000 Natives we are cheating.
Us Attorney General Gonzalles - testimony to Congress $200 BILLION MORE besides Cobell case owed to Indian country unaccounted for funds collect but not paid.
Treaty Tribes v Executive Order Tribes - The WA Tribes all have treaties that make gambling, hunting, fishing, a RESERVED RIGHT to the Tribes ...we sold 98% of WA territory to Governor Stevens and RESERVED our homelands, gaming and rights of soverign Governments equal to STATES in Powers ...just as NV legalizes prostitution and gambling...just as WA did for 80 years... Tribes have the option to legalized gambling ...do you ask NV to share gambling revenue with 'WA state.... ???
Other States have been held hostage by states ...Tribes in WA call it call it by its real name EXTORTION by Governors..
Booze - The Yakama Indian Nation Treaty bans booze on the Rez...the state of WA ignores the treaties and collects $45 million per year in booze taxes on the rez...should they have revenue sharing to pay for funerals, EMTS, hospital care, auto insurance increased rates fro YIN because of WA states collection of Booze taxes.... My Yakama relative had his ex wife and four daughters killed by a drunk driver...ask him what he thinks of WA legal booze on the REZ?
Razor Clams - The tribes of WA own 50% of the shell fish undr out treaties...
the past few years we have given additional clam digging days to WA citizens ... we increase tourism dollars to coastal WA ... it is a hard sell to our tribal members to forgo commerical clam digging to improve the economy of Coastal WA... Oh those greedy Natives... I have sat on the Quinault Nation Enterprise Board that governs QBRC fo the QIN...along with Quinault Tribal Gaming commission.... we work hard to be good tribal citizens in our enterprises...
yea those crazy indians employ and train there own people in hospitality, computers, marketing, food service, entertainment..... improve housing, education, health care, foster care and economic development... only 40,000 jobs created in past 15 years by the tribes of WA.... The National Indian gaming act regulates tribal gaming and 100% of profits go to tribal taxes...
we make it work recruiting, training and advancing our tribal members in new careers...
Logging Practices 1956 - WE are still waiting for our share of $300 billion ... My fathers alotment was logged and 25% of the logs were miss branded....so were credited to neighboring property owners... we had to sue the BIA to recover our rightfull owned timber....
Logging Practices 2008 by BIA - The BIA just put some of my land out for bid and I am not being compensated for cedar salvage ,wood chips for pulp or utility wood. I am filing a complaint with office of special trustee for American Indians ...
A Native Perspective of indian Gaming !
Robert Jackson (Quinault#640)
Seattle, WA
Posted Fri, Jun 20, 7:58 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Native Perspective: Well Mr Jackson, lets hear you defend the governor and her greedy tribal friends after reading the following facts:
• Prior to 2006 the state had negotiated agreements with various tribes to collect fuel excise taxes from the sale of fuel on Indian reservation lands. In recognition of Indian sovereignty the state then rebated back to the tribes a portion of the taxes on a per capita basis. It was a fair and equitable system also used in other states.
• In 2003 two tribes, the Swinomish and the Squaxins sued the state in federal court challenging the state's right to collect a fuel tax. The tribes won in 2006 when Judge Thomas Zilly of US District Court Western District of WA handed down an Amended Judgment and Permanent Injunction denying the state any right to collect the fuel taxes as in the past.
• To get around the injunction the legislature, in 2007 at the specific request of the DOL (arguably at the direction of the governor since DOL Director Liz Luce is a Gregoire appointee), modified state law to change the "legal incidence" of the application of the fuel tax on the tribes. The bill that accomplished this was SB 5272. It modified RCW 82.36.450 to work around the Zilly decision but, in the process, conveniently allowed the governor to delegate authority to the DOL to negotiate new fuel tax agreements with the tribes. See RCW 82.36.450(5). I believe that delegation of authority was a clever way of shifting the spotlight from the Governor's Office for what next transpired!
• The DOL, instead of negotiating new agreements using the old per capita formula arbitrarily agreed to a 25/75 percent formula! New agreements have been signed with ten tribes.
• The present state fuel tax is 36 cents per gallon, the highest in the nation. (It rises to 37.5 cents per gallon on July 1.) Under the new 25/75 agreements the state collects the full tax at the wholesale distribution point (known as "at the rack") but then on, a monthly basis, rebates 75 percent or 27 cents per gallon back to the tribes.
I have it on good authority from contacts in the oil industry that the tribe nearest me, the Swinomish, are pumping over 800,000 gallons per month from one small station with only 8 gas nozzles and 4 diesel nozzles. They can hardly keep up with demand. They are open 24/7 and vehicles are always backed up at their pumps during daylight hours. Word in the street has it they are thinking about expanding!
As a side effect, the 25/75 formula has created a two-tiered tax system. Non tribal customers who have access to tribal fuel are in effect only paying 9 cents per gallon in support of the state transportation system. Those without access pay the full 36 cents per gallon.
Do the math --- 800,000 gallons times 27 cents per gallon is a cash subsidy by the state of $216,000 per month to this one tribe. Unlike the hypothetical loss of casino revenue sharing dollars the tribal fuel tax subsidy is directly measurable because the tax is actually collected, deposited in the state treasury then rebated to the tribes monthly!
Did I say the rebate was directly measurable? Not quite! When the DOL asked the legislature to pass SB5272 a clause was inserted (RCW 82.36.450(4)) which declares that any information concerning tribal fuel business was PERSONAL and not subject to public inspection!
Think about it! The governor, through her proxy at the DOL, has signed off on a subsidy of 27 cents per gallon to ten tribes (more are wanting to renegotiate old per capita agreements) but the general public is denied knowledge of how much the subsidy is! Talk about sleazy politics!
A Non Native Perspective of Our Devious Governor !
Posted Mon, Jun 30, 4:22 p.m. inappropriate
does it really matter: The United States Supreme Court ruled in the 1950's that the state has no rights to govern tribal land. The Spokanes, Yakimas, Colvilles etc.. are sovereign nations that do NOT answer to Washington State. The pact between Gov. Gregoire and our tribes was done with the governer not having a leg to stand on. We meerly let her "rubber stamp" what we wanted, because once again WASHINGTON STATE HAS NO AUTHORTIY OVER OUR LANDS OR WHAT WE DO WITH OUR LANDS.....PERIOD!!