• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

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.