If you walked up Bruin Walk these past few days, there is a good
chance you ran into an army of signature gatherers trying to garner
support to get their measures on the November ballot. Two of the
biggest measures are competing propositions that deal with American
Indian gaming in California.
Supporters of each of these measures have been making misleading
claims to entice students to sign these petitions. UCLA students
were bombarded with statements like “sign my petition so the
government won’t raise your tuition” and “help
support American Indian self-sufficiency.” However, when it
comes down to it, neither one of these measures does what their
supporters claim, and both use smoke-and-mirror tactics to conceal
the truth.
One of these propositions is the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004,
which claims it will raise revenue to deal with California’s
budget crisis by establishing significant taxes on Indian gaming
revenues. However, it is not likely the initiative will produce the
results it promises. What people need to watch out for is a short
clause buried inside the initiative’s rhetoric, which states
if every compacted American Indian tribe doesn’t agree to the
25 percent tax within 90 days, then it won’t go into effect
and instead, five racetracks and 11 card rooms will be permitted to
bring in 30,000 slot machines.
At that point, 33 percent of the revenue from the
racetracks’ and card clubs’ slot machines would be
divided and go to local, county and state government coffers. Most
of the money would enter a state trust fund of which 50 percent
would go to improving education for neglected children in foster
care, 35 percent to local police forces, and 15 percent to local
firefighters.
Getting every American Indian tribe in California to agree to a
significant tax hike on themselves is highly unlikely. The real
effect of this legislation will likely be to massively increase the
amount of Nevada-style gaming in our communities. The slot machines
wouldn’t even be limited to these select locations because
each card room would get four slot machine licenses for every card
table it has, and it could sell those licenses to other
locations.
This is completely different than what signature gatherers were
telling students ““ that their petition would put a tax on
American Indian casinos which would generate billions in revenue to
stave off student fee hikes.
The reality is that it is a sweetheart deal for a few gambling
owners that would generate some revenue but also cause negative
side effects associated with Nevada-style gambling, like large
increases in crime and destructive gambling addictions.
Additionally, according to the bill, none of the money is slated
for higher education. Clearly, the signature gatherers have been
misleading students in telling them the proposition would prevent
more UC fee hikes.
Even the name of the group that is backing the proposition hides
the truth from California voters. The group calls itself
“Californians for Public Safety and Education.” But the
real power that is pushing the initiative is the various business
interests of the card clubs and racetracks with a stake in the
proposition.
Signature gatherers for the competing initiative, the Indian
Gaming Fair Share Revenue of 2004, have been using the same tactics
to get signatures for a proposition supported by the opposite group
of special interests ““ the Indian casinos. Signature
gatherers for this initiative have been telling students that it is
necessary for tribal self-sufficiency, which is also
misleading.
California voters already awarded Indian tribes with a lucrative
monopoly on Nevada-style gaming in our state with the passage of
Proposition 1A in 2000. Their industry generates the second highest
amount of gambling revenue in the country, second only to
Nevada.
This multi-billion dollar monopoly more than suffices for tribal
self-sufficiency.
Instead, what the American Indian casinos’ proposition
does is set a minimal tax on tribal gaming of 8 percent (which is
low compared to tribal gaming tax rates in other parts of the
country, like 25 percent in Connecticut) and eliminates the state
restriction of two casinos and 2,000 slot machines per tribe.
Similar to the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, the Indian Gaming Fair
Share Revenue of 2004 would lead to more unbridled expansion of
Nevada-style gaming into our communities while giving little in
revenue back to the people.
The misleading actions of the signature gatherers for these two
initiatives over the past two weeks have demonstrated an overall
flaw in the California initiative system. Special interests are
paying tens of millions of dollars to use deceptive tactics to push
their agendas. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is
spending $50 million alone on advertising for the Indian
casinos’ “Indian Gaming Fair Share Revenue of
2004.”
In the long run, what is really needed is reform of this
proposition system that is giving wealthy special interests so much
power.
Bitondo is a third-year history and political science
student. E-mail him at mbitondo@media.ucla.edu.