Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (154279)	1/10/2006 2:31:04 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Some good info out there re: Casinos and...MCCAIN-FEINGOLD – THE DARK SIDE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM RE: “SOFT-MONEY REFORM BILL GIVES INDIAN TRIBES MORE CLOUT” SPECIAL TO THE LA TIMES citizensalliance.org by Barb Lindsay Executive Director of United Property Owners March 27, 2002 MCCAIN-FEINGOLD – THE DARK SIDE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Kudos to Fred Dickey for his LA Times’ expose on the “Tribal Loophole” in recently passed Campaign Finance Reform bill. As he correctly noted, Indian tribes clearly stand to benefit enormously under the terms of this legislation. Thanks to Dickey for having the courage to tell the mostly untold story of how only one particular group will be exempted from the ban on special interest donations and limits on campaign contributions under so-called Campaign Finance Reform: Indian Tribes. In a recent interview with the Boston Globe, Senator John McCain acknowledged that tribes will gain what he described as an “unintended benefit” under his pet bill. Here’s exactly how and why McCain is right: Each of 559 separate tribal government in America will be allowed to make aggregate campaign contributions of more than $500,000 per year in “hard money” donations directly to federal candidates, a much higher amount than the $25,000 annual limit for the rest of us. This creates a national political influence capability of over $279 million dollars per year. McCain's arrogantly understated "unintended benefit" literally puts Congress on the auction block to Indian tribes - highest bidder wins. Under the terms of an outrageous Federal Election Commission ruling of May 2000, tribal governments are considered a "person", but not ‘individuals.” While “individuals” are limited in the amount they can contribute annually to $25,000 (rising to $37,500 under McCain-Feingold), tribal governments are not. And since tribes will have the ability to give larger amounts of “hard money” to candidates, they will inevitably gain in political influence over donors who face stricter limits on giving. But here’s the rub. That FEC opinion (that McCain and other cash-chasing congressional reps in both parties refused to fix when they had the chance) allows tribes to make federal campaign contributions with government funds. This is the only exemption to federal election law’s fundamental requirement that all funds donated to campaigns must be derived from the “voluntary contributions” of individual U.S. citizens. (Federal law prohibits funds from the general treasuries of corporations or labor unions to be used unless separate accounts are created to accept the voluntary contributions of union members and company executives). Here’s the real clincher: Tribal governments are the only governments in America who can legally make campaign contributions of any kind, and they are making them in very large amounts. It is clearly unfair and wrong for tribes to be able to tap into their government treasuries to fund political gifts, especially when tribal bank accounts are made up of business profits of every kind, including wads of tax-free casino cash and our federal tax dollars. Political Action Committees (or PACs) are treated much differently by the FEC, in a way that gives tribes a distinct advantage. PACs must be funded with personal funds donated only by individual members of a particular company or union affiliated with a PAC and individual contributions, limited to $5,000 annually, must be publicly disclosed. Nobody but tribal leadership typically knows where tribal funds come from or how they are spent. Tribal members usually have no clue. Tribes with casinos are already among the biggest contributors to politicians of every stripe. According to the National Journal, six of the top 10 “soft money” donors among special interest groups nationwide in 1999-2000 were, you guessed it, tribal governments. A report by the Center for Responsive Politics found the top single recipient of tribal largesse during the 2000 election was campaign finance crusader, Senator John McCain, who also just happens to sit on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. It may be of interest to your readers to know that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut donated almost $30 thousand dollars to John McCain's Presidential Campaign (at just one fundraising event from one tribe). Do you wonder how much McCain raised in total from the more than 559 separate tribes nationwide? Lots. In 2001, McCain was again the top individual recipient of tribal campaign contributions. Perhaps that’s why the Senator kept publicly insisting the House make no amendments to his bill? Now that McCain-Feingold has been signed into law, tribes will benefit even more because it restricts the speech of all other special interest groups by abolishing "soft money" contributions to political parties and curbing "issue advocacy" communications that appear during the last 60 days leading up to an election campaign. In the case of California Indian tribes, we're talking really big money spent on politics. In the two year time period leading up to statewide votes on Prop. 5 and Prop. 1A, tribes spent over $100 million dollars in total to garner themselves a casino gambling monopoly here. (To put this amount of money in perspective, that's almost exactly the same amount George Bush and Al Gore spent to nail down their respective parties' presidential nominations in all fifty states, not just in one state.) In reality, of course, tribal governments are not "persons" or "individuals" or "trade groups, associations and partnerships," or even "special interest groups." They are tax-supported, federally recognized governments. Although tribal leaders often talk about the great economic benefits of tribal gaming (“The New Buffalo") in fact, only a small number of Indians actually benefit, and those few often benefit enormously, to the detriment of rank and file tribal members. According to Bill Lawrence of (Minnesota), Editor of Native American Press/Ojibwe News, our nation's only major independent Indian newspaper, ". . . federal government expenditures on Indian reservations have grown, doubled (and) tripled in the last ten years . . . (while) Indian graduation rates are declining. Arrest and crime rates are increasing. Social problems, especially on the reservations, are increasing. Despite extensive federal, state and tribal housing programs, Indians are twenty times more likely to be homeless than the majority population. Despite multiple nutrition programs, Indians disproportionately patronize food (bank) shelves - - and have the worst health and lowest life expectancies of any identifiable group in (America)." Federal grant money and Indian gaming profits are intended to improve the social and economic condition of tribal members, not to provide political contributions for partisan elections. Tribal government campaign contributions can't represent the diversity of their members and effectively force tribal members, without their consent, to donate funds to political campaigns they may, or may not, personally support. Tribes have already gained more collective clout by donating in concert to affect the outcome of particular elections (like Slade Gorton's Senate Race in Washington State two years ago) and now influence public policy with targeted donations from hundreds of tribes across the nation, using federal tax dollars, grant monies, and gambling proceeds that are difficult, and often impossible, for opponents to match. Encouraging a perpetual flow of megabucks from tribal officials to our elected representatives goes far beyond simple political advantage. It places elected officials in a forever lose-lose position. If they don't do the tribes' bidding, they are cashed out of office by a well-funded opponent. If they do sign on to the the monetary servitude the tribes require, they risk compromising the rights and needs of their other constituents. Non-Indian citizens will now find it harder to elect representatives who are free of tribal influence. And this unfair advantage will be increased now that McCain-Feingold has become law. In fact, the probability is high that tribal governments will become conduits for the campaign contributions of other entities. Tribes are rapidly increasing their donation amounts and the sophistication of their campaign donations. Their huge contributions threaten to corrupt the entire political process of this country at the local, state and national level. Every American citizen and elected official should be very concerned about giving Indian tribes such an enormous advantage over all other political donors. Since deep-pocketed tribes aren’t limited in their contributions like every other interest group in America, how can anyone say we have "reformed" campaign financing? Tribal interests should have been included in the new campaign spending limits and all governments should be equally barred from direct or indirect involvement in this country's partisan political campaigns. Barb Lindsay is Executive Director of United Property Owners, PO Box 222336, Carmel Valley, CA 93922-2336. UPO is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, nonpartisan 501C4 public educational membership organization, founded in 1989, working to defend our constitutionally guaranteed private property rights and civil liberties, defend the free enterprise system, and improve federal Indian policy for the benefit of Indians and non-Indians alike. UPO has approximately 68,000 members in 50 states including 290 property owner groups, local governments, elected officials, small businesses, homeowner and trade associations, who have banded together in a mutual effort to promote citizen involvement in government decision making and bring more balance to implementation of federal Indian policy (FIP). Many state and local elected officials and members of Congress have called UPO one of the most effective grassroots lobbying organizations in America. Barb is 1/8th Cherokee Indian. Tele. (831) 626-3371. E-mail: Barb@unitedpropertyowners.org

To: steve harris who wrote (154279)	1/10/2006 2:35:43 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

Looks like there's plenty of investigations to be done: Tribal Money's Undue Influence on the Clinton Administration citizensalliance.org The Indian Casino Decision The DNC targeted the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") to influence a decision whether three bands of Wisconsin Indian tribes would be allowed to open a casino in Hudson, Wisconsin. A wealthy group of neighboring tribes in Minnesota, who operated a nearby casino that would face competition if the Hudson application were approved, opposed the proposal. Significantly, the opposing tribes had given large sums of money to the DNC, while the applicants had not After the BIA's Minneapolis office approved the applicant tribes' plan in late 1994, the opposing tribes hired Patrick O'Connor, a prominent lobbyist and former DNC treasurer, who spoke personally with President Clinton about this matter. Four days later, O'Connor, accompanied by other lobbyists and opposition tribal leaders, met with Fowler. As one participant recalled it, Fowler "got the message: it's politics and the Democrats are against [the new casino] and the people for it are Republicans." Fowler promised that he would contact Ickes and have him talk with Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, which he did a few days later After making several calls herself to the Interior Department, Ickes' assistant Jennifer O'Connor, in June 1995 asked a White House intern to get an update on the Hudson casino. Heather Sibbison, special assistant to Secretary Babbitt, told the intern "it was 95% certain that the application would be turned down." Just two days later, however, a career BIA employee, wrote a 17-page analysis recommending approval of the Hudson application. Nevertheless, the assurances that Secretary Babbitt's staff conveyed to Ickes' office were correct: despite the BIA's recommendation that it be approved, a draft letter rejecting the application was prepared on June 29, 1995, and the Interior Department formally denied the application on July 14 The opposing tribes apparently had little doubt as to how to show their gratitude for the Interior Department's decision to protect them from gaming competition. According to FEC records, in the four months following the Department's denial of the Hudson application, the opposition tribes contributed $53,000 to the DNC and the DSCC; they donated an additional $230,000 to the DNC and the DSCC during 1996, and gave more than $50,000 in additional money to the Minnesota Democratic Party Another suspicious aspect of the Hudson episode involves the inconsistent positions taken by Secretary Babbitt when asked about the matter. According to Paul Eckstein, a longtime friend of Secretary Babbitt who had been retained by the applicant tribes, when Eckstein tried to persuade Secretary Babbitt to delay making a decision on the Hudson matter, Secretary Babbitt replied that Ickes had directed him to issue a decision that very day. Later in their conversation, Eckstein told the Committee, Secretary Babbitt turned the subject to political contributions, declaring to Eckstein: "Do you have any idea how much these Indians, Indians with gaming contracts . . . have given to Democrats? . . . [H]alf a million dollars." When asked about these comments by Senator John McCain, who then chaired the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Secretary Babbitt denied that he had ever told Eckstein anything about Ickes seeking a prompt decision on the Hudson matter. Nevertheless, several months later, in response to this Committee's inquiry, Secretary Babbitt changed his story, admitting that he probably did make such a remark to Eckstein about Ickes' request. Secretary Babbitt still claims to have "no recollection" of making the comment Eckstein recalls about the opposing tribes' political contributions.[9] The Hudson casino matter is, if anything, more sordid than the Tamraz story, as political donations to the DNC apparently succeeded in purchasing government policy concessions. In light of the opposing tribes' DNC contributions, the DNC's lobbying effort against the casino, the involvement of Ickes' staff in drawing Secretary Babbitt's attention to this issue, and Secretary Babbitt's remarkable comments to Eckstein, the Hudson casino matter raises serious questions about the propriety – and the legality – of the Interior Department's decision. And the DNC also took advantage of two Oklahoma tribes that sought the return of their former lands, and made contributions in the belief that their prospects for favorable action would be enhanced © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company July and August 1995 - MIGA, Frank Ducheneaux, O'Connor-Hanna lobbying firm, JoAnne Jones of the Ho-Chunk Nation, Stanley Crooks of the Mdewakanton Sioux and other chairmen from the opposing tribes send numerous "thank-you" letters to the White House, DNC and Indian Affairs Committee thanking Ickes, Fowler, Mercer, and Sen. McCain for their assistance in "working with" the Department of Interior to defeat the Four Feathers casino project. Some of the letters include promises of continued financial support to Clinton and the DNC. August 2, 1995 - The Mille Lac Band donates $1,000 to the DNC September 13, 1995 - Grand Casino Mille Lac donates $15,000 to the DNC. September 15, 1995 - The Oneida Tribe donates $10,000 to the DNC. October 26, 1995 - Grand Casinos Inc., donates $3,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee. November 3, 1995 - Grand Casinos Inc. donate $10,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee. November 9, 1995 - The St. Croix Tribal Council donates $15,000 to the DNC. November 11, 1995 - The Oneida Tribe donates $10,000 to the DNC. November 15, 1995 - Grand Casino Inc. donate $10,000 to the Republican National State Election Committee. March 28, 1996 - Deborah Doxtator attends a White House coffee hosted by President Clinton. Doxtator says in February 12, 1997 interview that she took the opportunity to ask for Clinton's support in a New York lands claim issue. The Oneida Tribe donates $30,000 to the DNC. June 6, 1996 - The Mdewakanton Sioux donate $5,000 to the DNC June 7, 1996 - The Mdewakanton Sioux donate $20,000 to the DNC June 21, 1996 -The St. Croix Chippewa donate $15,000 to the DNC June 30, 1996 - St. Croix Chairman Lewis Taylor donate $1,000 to the Clinton/Gore campaign. July 15, 1996 - The Lower Sioux Community donates $5,000 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. August 2, 1996 - The Mdewakanton Sioux donates $25,000 to the DNC. August 30, 1996 - Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in a letter to Senator John McCain denies that he ever discussed Ickes, or a deadline in his conversation with pro-casino lobbyist Paul Eckstein on July 14, 1995. September 2nd - Labor Day, 1996 - President Clinton campaigns in DePere, Wisconsin and while preparing for the campaign tour asks then Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to bring him up to date on the casino issue. September 4, 1996 - The Oneida Tribe donates $50,000 to the DNC. October 7, 1996 - The Mdewakanton Sioux donate $25,000 to the DNC. October 9, 1996 - The Mdewakanton Sioux donate $25,000 to the DNC. November 4, 1996 - The Leech Lake Chippewa donate $5,000 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. The St. Croix Tribal Council donates $20,000 to the DNC. November 6, 1996 - Oneida Chair Deborah Doxtator donates $2,000 to the DNC. January 30, 1997 - The Oneida Tribe donates $3,000 to the DNC. March, 1997 - Federal Judge Barbara Crabb in the Four Feathers lawsuit against Interior writes in a ruling for discovery, "there is a distinct possibility that improper political influence affected" the decision. May 1, 1997 - The Leech Lake Chippewa donate $1,000 to the DNC. September 9, 1997 - Don Fowler testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee acknowledging that he met with tribal leaders in April 1995 and later contacted administration officials on their behalf. "To my recollection I did not suggest a result, did not ask for an outcome. I just asked that it be reviewed." "Whatever they contributed or didn't contribute had nothing to do with my action in that regard," he said. September 17, 1997 - Lawyers for the Four Feathers partnership are given a copy of anti-casino lobbyist Larry Kitto's full calender. Kitto's calender indicates that he had promised at least $50,000 to the DNC and 25 Ð $1,000 donations to the Clinton/Gore campaign. September 25, 1997 - Lobbyist Larry Kitto is deposed by lawyers for the Four Feathers casino project. October 8, 1997 - A combative Harold Ickes tells the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that he cannot remember taking part in key events that led to the denial of the proposed casino. October 9, 1997 - Babbitt sends a letter of the Senate Government Affairs Committee saying he may have told pro-casino lobbyist Paul Eckstein that Ickes had ordered him to make a decision that day (July 14, 1995) but only invoked Ickes' name to get him out of the office during an "awkward meeting." October 17, 1997 - The White House claims Executive or other Privileges in protecting memos regarding the casino project. Some documents are leaked to the Associated Press. The memos are summarized for presentation to Judge Crabb in the Madison, Wisconsin lawsuit against Interior. Two of the memos held secret are dated Oct. 22 and 23, 1996 October 24, 1997 - The Justice Department confirms that the issue of the Hudson casino project is under a preliminary 30-day criminal probe review. Interior spokesman Mike Gauldin confirms that Justice has requested permission to interview several Interior staff members. October 30, 1997 - Bruce Babbitt appearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee denies misleading pro-casino lobbyist Paul Eckstein, or that he invoked Ickes' name on July 14, 1995. He says he only told Eckstein that he said his superiors expected him to make a decision. November 13, 1997 - Attorney General Janet Reno extends the Justice Department inquiry into Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's activities in the casino application for another 60 days, in a move that is reported to be bringing the investigation of Babbitt closer to the appointment of an independent investigative counsel. November, 1997 - Oneida Lobbyist Bill Gollnick in November of 1997 says the donations to the DNC were specifically to be used as a "Get out the vote" campaign in Indian Country during 1996, to establish an Indian desk at the DNC and for voter registration. Gollnick denies that the donations from the Oneida Tribe are tied to the defeat of the Hudson casino application. Gollnick also tell NFIC editor Paul DeMain, on November 12th, that when we examine the record, "we would find that Oneida was not represented at those meetings." The information contained in this article was acquired from the Federal Election Commission, Center for Responsible Politics, The Native American Press, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Associated Press, The New York Times and KahliWisaks.