California Proposition 94, 95, 96, 97 - Indian Gaming Compacts

Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Souther...

california indian casinosPropositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Southern California to build "super casinos" larger than those found on the Las Vegas strip. These will be on the Feb 5, 2008 ballot...

  • Prop 94 - affects Pechanga Casino

  • Prop 95 - affects Morongo Casino

  • Prop 96 - affects Sycuan Casino

  • Prop 97 - affects Agua Caliente Casino

Texts of these four referendums are essentially the same, the only differences being the number of additional slot machines they are allowed to add, and the amount of money they'll be paying to the State.

The Breakdown

What the Casinos get...

  • Casinos get to triple or nearly quadruple their number of slot machines (Pechanga goes from 2,000 to 7,500)


  • Casinos are no longer subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves.


  • Casinos no longer have to have an impartial auditor count the slot machine revenues; they'll be able to audit them on their own.


  • Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. That is, if an organization other than an indian tribe receives a clearance to build a gambling establishment, the indian casino will be allowed to reduce its taxes to the State, or eliminate them altogether.

What the State gets...

  • Casinos will now pay taxes to the State General Fund. Previously, casino taxes were paid to two tribal funds (RSTF and SDF) that the State distributed to smaller tribes, and tribal administrative bodies. The General Fund is spent on all Californians.


  • Casinos will now pay more money than before, almost double than under the current compact agreements. But as mentioned above, the Indian tribes will now get to audit their own revenues for the purpose of deciding how much money goes to the State. Under the current arrangement, an impartial auditor is used. So, it's not exactly clear how much more money California will receive.

History

The provisions spelled out above were actually passed by the State Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor, in June 2007. It was supposed to go into effect January 1, 2008.

But other indian tribes within the State, particularly the Pala Tribe, as well as some racing tracks, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Tax Reform Association, managed to gather enough signatures to put Props 94, 95, 96, and 97 on the ballot as a last ditch effort to override the Governor's signature.

The Pala Tribe is concerned that their casino will lose business if Pechanga is allowed to greatly expand its casino.

A "no" vote means the existing 1999 agreements will remain in effect. A "yes" vote allows these new provisions to go into effect.

Opinion

I'm not in favor of the new provisions. I'll be voting "no" on these propositions.

I do want indian tribes to pay into the State General Fund. But I don't like two particular details: the "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for allowing non-tribal gambling operations to exist, and allowing the indian tribes to audit their own revenues for purposes of determining their payment amounts to the State.

As a free society, anybody and any business should be free to operate a casino. If indian tribes can build a casino, then why can't I? The "fail safe" provision takes that freedom away, because it allows indian tribes to reduce or eliminate their payments to the State General Fund if a non-tribal gambling operation starts up.

And letting tribes audit their own money is a priviledge that I don't have, nor you. When we pay taxes, the State is free to audit our money as they please. We don't have the right kick the state out of our books, so why should the tribes?

And why should the tribes be excluded from the California Environmental Quality Act? As a business owner, I don't have that priviledge! No other business has that priviledge.

I don't have anything against indian casinos, or building "super casinos", but I want fairness and equality. I own a small business, and I don't like the fact that indian tribes can get special priviledges just because they're indians. That's state-sanctioned racism, against me and you.

My solution to all this is to dissolve indian reservations. Let indians be treated equally as any other Californian. If we applied the same business and tax laws to indian casinos, we'll recieve plenty of tax revenues. And they'll be free to expand without compacts.

For further reading...

Related

Elections 50115248672126316

Post a Comment

  1. Excellent points. I'm not in favor of only certain tribes getting expanded gaming. Of course, my particular complaint is with Pechanga (no on 94) Pechanga has violated their people's (25% OF THEM, anyway) and have shrunk their tribe, instead of bringing those who rightfully belong into the tribe.
    The special fund was designed to help ALL tribes in CA, and that's what they sold Californians on. Now, the Governor shows he doesn't care about them, nor does the legislature.
    The expanded gaming compacts ARE NOT good for CA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. nobody's fool anymoreDecember 15, 2007 9:43 PM

    Oh, you don't know the half of it.

    Pechanga is in the midst of an FBI investigation for massive embezzlement. Casino managers not only defrauded the casino itself, but the dealers as well by forcing them to pool their tips and then stealing those pooled tokes.

    One high ranking tribal member/table games manager has been quietly kicked out of the casino (although he'll still get his monthly stipend for life), while others in management have been taken out in handcuffs.

    CORRUPTION RUNS RAMPANT in Indian Gaming and not one single news organization will touch it. Makes you wonder why. Too much tax revenue at stake?

    Lets not fool anyone, the Governor of California HAS to be in the know re: the FBI investigations. Is he going to be part of the problem by turning a blind eye or part of the solution by demanding accountability? My guess? Follow the money. All sins are forgiven if the price is right. Meanwhile, over 6000 employees are affected, but who cares about them? They're simple plebians - afraid to speak out for fear of backlash - easy marks for greed mongers.

    Floor managers and Pits shaking down dealers for a share of their income. Trainers SELLING dealing jobs at $3,000 per head, or for sex -regardless of ability. For those who gained their jobs honestly and perform their duties with integrity, this goes beyond a slap in the face.

    This smacks of early Vegas.

    Upper management receiving kick backs for everything from casino software to the building of the new high limit rooms. Hiring known managers of, to say the least, dubious character and giving them free reign. How much was stolen? ... MILLIONS ???

    Wake up people. you are being hoodwinked. If the taxpayers of California give them the freedom to self audit, then they get what they deserve and those millionaire tribal members most asuredly will laugh all the way to the bank. Why would they care, so long as they get their $15,000+ a month?

    Oh and lets not forget San Manuel. Tribal members laundering money, selling drugs and guns to the Mexican drug cartels - all swept under the rug. The general public oblivious to it all. Now that's a sweet deal.

    ALL INDIAN CASINOS should be scrutinized. They don't need less oversight - they need more. Alot more.

    Meanwhile, I surely wish someone in the press had the courage to ask the Governor CALIFORNIANS VOTED FOR for an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I will oppose these propositions for the following reasons:
    I don't like the "fail safe" issue.
    I don't like the self audit issue.
    There is too much possibility for future corruption and with no guarantee of revenue for use by the general public of California.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm, none of this information is in the TV commercials. I wonder why...

    I guess if someone asked the state how much it was worth to sell their soul to the devil we would find the answer in these propositions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe after we invaded their land, forced them to move, killed generations of their people, and brought them to the brink of extinction, they have the right to embezzle a little bit of money from us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Pechanga Chairman went to school in Colton, his father went to San Bernardino HS. The casino manager who was kicked out of the casino for theft isn't even Pechanga.. Nobody forced them to move and they don't deserve the same leeway for embezzlement that you would give to a Native American from the 1850's. Macarro's cousins went to Eisenhower in Rialto. Nobody stole their buffalo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I want to be clear on my previous post. Pechanga Chairman Macarro was not involved in the theft ring at the casino. He is, however responsible for not controlling the corruption of the disenrollment committee and for not holding the council to uphold tribal law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let the Casinos get as bid as they
    want as long as California gets
    a fair share of the Pie.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please vote NO! on Prop 94. Im a true BLOOD Pechanga Indian. Im in the illegal Moratorium. It has been over 10 years and will go tell 2015 when they vote on another 5, 10 or 15 year moratorium. The only people to get enrolled were familly members of the enrollment committe last Jan. Have a really good X-mas tribal member I know you will$$$$. Im going to try to make my house payment for my x-mas presnt. Stand up tribal members take back your tribe your not going to loose your golden egg. TRUE BLOOD FOR LIFE

    ReplyDelete
  10. Readers, when you hear 'moratorium' and pechanga, this is a violation of Pechanga's own Constitution. The Tribe voted to have a moratorium over a decade ago, because some realized that self reliance included bringing people into the tribe that belonged, but if they did that, then they would have to split their per capita checks. The Tribal Council declared the moratorium VALID. (the people have spoken) Flash forward about 8 years and the tribe votes to stop ALL DISENROLLMENTS (the people have spoken) The Tribe all of a sudden says the people can't vote on disenrollment. Let's see, they can vote to keep people OUT, but they can't vote to keep people IN! Yes, you can trust Pechanga to tell us how much profit they made.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe after we invaded their land, forced them to move, killed generations of their people, and brought them to the brink of extinction, they have the right to embezzle a little bit of money from us.

    By Anonymous, at December 18, 2007 12:09 AM

    I didn't kill anyone and your living in a bumper sticker. There is no "we" or "they" here. Californians...period. If you grew up in reality and with any tribal friends you would know how the whole tribal scam works for a few families and not for the Tribe. Califorina Tribes Rock!!!