WASHINGTON – An investigative report published Sept. 28 by The New York Times has gotten plenty of people talking about Sen. John McCain’s connections to the gaming industry. But tribal officials and others familiar with Indian gaming say the report amplifies misperceptions that tribal casinos, and the political routes to achieving them, are often inappropriate or corrupt.
The article, titled “For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling,” makes clear that the Republican presidential candidate has had much involvement in the evolution of Indian gaming.
Its authors, Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr., highlight decisions McCain made while serving as head of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee from 1995 – 97 and again from 2005 – 07. They note, too, that McCain and the late Rep. Morris K. Udall, D-Ariz., helped write the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 after the Supreme Court found that states had little right to control reservation gaming.
“As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country,” the authors write.
Later, they indicate that “McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as ‘birds of prey.’ Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fundraisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests – including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.”
They note instances in which expensive tribal lobbyists communicated with McCain and his staff on the development of specific casinos. The authors indicate that the senator’s role in helping uncover the misdeeds of disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff perhaps had more to do with his possible desire for political revenge than a true concern to reform lobbying ethics – a claim that his campaign has denied.
Twice in the article, the authors say that public opposition to Indian casinos is growing, but they do not cite research to back up the claims. They also indicate that McCain “has distanced himself from Indian gambling” as a result of political pressure, and correctly note that he no longer accepts contributions from tribes.
The overall point of the article is to paint a picture of McCain’s involvement in both the commercial and tribal gaming industry, but several Indian leaders are concerned it doesn’t do enough to point out that tribal actions in the gaming field are largely just and fully rooted in tribal sovereignty.
A National Indian Gaming Association official said that some in the organization feel the article treats Indian gaming solely as a special interest that has unduly influenced one of the nation’s top politicians.
“Indian gaming is not a special interest,” the official said. “It is but one outcome of tribal sovereignty, and tribes’ rights to self-govern and try to prosper through various economic development means.
“That tribes have learned to work within the confines of the federal political system [by hiring lobbyists] to try to see that their rights are served is not an area that mainstream reporters should be sensationalizing without reporting all the background and facts.”
Officials associated with the National Congress of American Indians have also decried what they call the article’s shortcomings.
“For ‘Average Joe,’ it creates a perception that Indian gaming is happening on the magnitude where all tribes are hiring million-dollar lobbyists,” said W. Ron Allen, who serves on the NCAI executive board and is chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
“There’s a lot more to this industry than the scandalous, seedy side, which seems to be attractive to many mainstream reporters. … The article really doesn’t reveal how well Indian gaming is actually regulated and managed; it doesn’t talk about how the majority of us represent ourselves or use much more reasonably priced lobbyists; it doesn’t talk about all the economic assistance tribal gaming has provided in strengthening many of our communities.”
Allen is also a member of the American Indians for McCain Coalition, but he has not been hesitant to point out areas where he thinks the Arizona senator has been wrong regarding Indian gaming. For instance, he takes issue with McCain’s use of the term “off-reservation gaming” to describe tribal pursuits of developments in areas where their traditional homelands have always been located.
Allen added that he felt the reporters were justified in questioning whether past political slights to McCain from tribal lobbyist foes played a role in him ultimately being less supportive of Indian gaming and tribes as he became more interested in pursuing the presidency.
Steven Light, co-director of the Institute for the Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy at the University of North Dakota, said that Indians are often justifiably sensitive to how they are portrayed in the press, especially when it comes to gaming. He noted a controversial exposé in Time magazine from 2002, titled “Wheel of Misfortune,” and several negative articles about tribal connections to Abramoff as examples that tribes, on the whole, have often been treated unfairly.
“It’s not unreasonable at all to be concerned about backlash,” he said, noting that he’s seen many negative comments on blogs and online comment boards about Indian gaming in the days since the current Times piece appeared.
Light said it is worthwhile to note that gaining political access and influence through high-powered lobbyists is the way the Indian gaming system partially works, whether one thinks that fact is good or bad. It’s a reality, he said, that the average American probably doesn’t quite fully understand, especially as a result of reading one article.
Light himself was interviewed for the Times piece for more than an hour, but only one of his quotes, in which he called McCain “one of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” made it into the published article.
“I was very conscious when I spoke to one of the reporters about perceptions of tribal gaming and how it would be perceived by the outside world. …
“I think that in an investigative piece like the one the Times published, it would be useful to have the context of tribal sovereignty and the Supreme Court’s recognition of it as part of the story.”
When asked about tribal and Indian gaming officials’ criticisms of their article, both Becker and Van Natta said they could not comment on the record.
The McCain campaign, however, was more than willing to offer comment.
“In this election there is no candidate with more experience or commitment to Native American issues than John McCain, and that is a demonstrated fact,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds. “Engaging the article makes no sense, because it missed the mark and doesn’t deserve the effort – readers who know better, will see it for what it is.”
