The truth about tribal gaming

For Immediate Release: August 1, 2008

OLYMPIA � Recent media coverage questioning removal of a revenue sharing provision from a tribal compact is inaccurate and ignores the facts.

� Following the lead of state voters who in 2004 overwhelmingly rejected Initiative 892, which would have led to a massive expansion of gambling in Washington state, Gov. Gregoire and a bipartisan group of state and local leaders opposed revenue sharing provisions. This was based on their shared fears that revenue sharing would result in a rampant expansion and lead to a reliance on gambling revenue by the state.

� There is no evidence that Washington state would have raised $140 million from revenue sharing (�Tribes give big to Gregoire, avoid sharing casino cash,� June 12, 2008), or lost �hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the state� by abandoning the revenue-sharing provision (�Democrats defend tribal compacts,� August 1, 2008) both as carried by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

� Until yesterday, the issue of revenue sharing was not raised at earlier hearings on the Spokane compact. A joint legislative committee had ample opportunity to review the approval process for compacts during which they could have addressed their concerns on revenue sharing.

� Tribal lottery machines first appeared in Washington state in 1998 following a federal court order. Each federally recognized tribe was allowed 675 machines. When the compacts were renegotiated in 2005, the tribes initially requested unlimited number of machines per tribe. Through negotiations spanning almost two years, the parties agreed to 975 machines.

� At a mid-July 2008 conference sponsored by the Washington Indian Gaming Association, Attorney General Rob McKenna said that the �law was scrupulously followed� during the negotiation. �It was conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law and it produced a compact which was adopted strictly within the requirements of the framework of state and federal law. Period. And if anyone ever questions the process I would be happy to tell them that, to the letter, we believe the law was scrupulously followed.� (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 25, 2008)

� Federal law prohibits taxing tribes. Federal law only allows revenue sharing if the U.S. Secretary of the Interior determines that a tribe receives a substantial right in return for revenue sharing. In most cases, this means a tribe must be allowed to operate an unlimited number of machines or must receive exclusive rights to particular types of gaming. Washington regulates the number of machines the tribes may operate.

� Contrary to reports that the state receives no money from these compacts, through the negotiations, tribes pay local impact fees, pay for smoking mitigation and problem gaming programs (first required in the latest compacts), and commit to substantial community investments which include infrastructure, schools and public facilities.

On December 23, 2006, Gregoire wrote in a letter to John Ellis, a member of the Washington State Gambling Commission:

�I have made it clear on several occasions that I am personally opposed to gambling. However, I am committed to honoring the commitments made by the state in prior compacts and complying with federal law. I understand that components of the current compacts must evolve over time as a result. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to provide Native American tribes a means to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. All Washington tribes, big and small, urban and rural, have benefited from tribal gaming. This is a result of Washington�s unique state tribal compact structure. I understand that adjustments to the current system may be necessary to fulfill the state�s legal obligations to make machines available to the Spokanes, but any adjustments must adhere to the fundamental goal of supporting the economic development of all tribes.

�As you know, tribal casinos are wholly owned by the tribal government and revenues generated are used to promote tribal development. Tribes have built health clinics, needed infrastructure, and have expanded educational opportunities for their communities. Tribal members and nontribal members have benefited from these investments. I do not believe revenue sharing is necessary so long as tribes remain committed to investing in programs that benefit tribal and non-tribal members, including initiatives that mitigate the impacts of gaming. In particular, I believe there should be a commitment to preventing problem gambling.�

Other leaders shared Gregoire�s views:

�� Fortunately, Gov. Christine Gregoire nixed the proposed Spokane Tribe Class III Gambling Compact and sent the commission staff back to the negotiating table. � It proposed a tenfold increase in the number of video slot machines, higher betting limits, extended hours, multiple facilities on reservations and an off-reservation facility.

�� I am also troubled by the popular notion of state �revenue sharing,� which was also included in the proposed Spokane compact. While the idea of requiring tribal governments to share their gaming revenue with state government is appealing on the surface, I think it would place state government in a conflicted position as a business partner with the tribe�.�

Norm Maleng
King County Prosecutor
Seattle Times op-ed
Nov. 22, 2005

�� I believe it would have caused the number and size of tribal casinos in Washington to literally explode. For the first time, state and local governments would have received a cut. Sounds like a good deal, until you hear what the tribe would get in return: 7,500 electronic machines (4,000 at one location, up from 1,500), permission to operate a casino off the tribal reservation (opening the door to megacasinos in our downtowns and neighborhoods) and 24/7 operations.

�Almost worse, the agreement would have made the state budget dependent on a regular dose of tribal gaming monies��

Jim Honeyford
State Senator
Seattle Times letter to editor
Nov. 30, 2005

Last week Pierce County legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, met to discuss issues vital to our delegation. One issue jumped from the headlines onto our immediate agenda the possible compact with the Spokane Tribe of Indians.

The October 8, News Tribune headline, �Deal could expand tribal gambling�, caught everyone�s attention. This was the first time many of us had learned about the pending agreement which would grant many exceptional opportunities to the Spokane Tribe in
exchange for �a cut of their winnings�. In our discussion many concerns were raised, including the precedent set by this agreement and the broad expansion of gambling this is likely to create.

We urge you not to sign this agreement. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this issue in person.

Entire Pierce County Legislative Delegation (2005 legislative session)
Letter to Gov. Gregoire
Oct. 20, 2005