Stay out of Indian gambling debate, Nevada told

Indian political leaders have a pointed message for Nevada gaming interests as California voters prepare for another vote on legalized gambling in that state: Keep out of our affairs.

"I have free advice for the corporations (in Nevada)," said Michael Lombardi, an Indian casino management consultant from Long Beach, Calif. "Why don't you save your stockholders and bondholders money before getting involved in a battle you're destined to lose?

"Are you listening, Circus Circus (Mandalay Resort Group) and Mirage (Resorts Inc.)? Stay out of California's affairs, because you're going to get your - - - - - kicked. You thought we were dead."

Lombardi and several other Indian gaming political experts spoke at a Tuesday morning session of World Gaming Expo. They warned that tribal political power is rising quickly -- and that they're prepared to make it felt on a state and national level.

The speakers expressed outrage at Nevada gaming companies and politicians for their attempts to sway California voters in 1998 during the vote on Proposition 5, a measure that would have allowed a massive expansion of Indian gaming in that state.

The proposition passed with 63 percent of the vote. However, Proposition 5 was invalidated by the California Supreme Court Aug. 23. The court ruled that the proposition violated a constitutional amendment that banned Nevada-style gambling in California. The court's decision was widely cheered in Nevada by political and business figures alike, who saw Proposition 5 as a significant threat to the state's gaming industry. California represents the Nevada gaming industry's largest market.

However, California voters will be asked in March to approve a measure that would change the state constitution to give tribes a monopoly on slot machines, as well as the right to offer Nevada-style blackjack. About 57 tribes also signed a new gaming compact with Gov. Gray Davis that will allow a limited expansion of gambling in that state.

Lombardi vowed that the proposed amendment, called Proposition 1A, would pass as easily as Proposition 5 before it, given the vast support it enjoys among California's elected officials.

"Proposition 1A will be another Battle of Little Big Horn," Lombardi said.

Josh Pane, a Sacramento lobbyist for several California tribes, noted that the tribes showed their rising political power during the Proposition 5 campaign, outspending Nevada's gaming interests by a more than 2-to-1 margin. The tribes put up nearly $70 million, compared to about $30 million by anti-Proposition 5 forces. Virtually all of the Proposition 5 dollars came from Nevada.

"Las Vegas and the boys threw just about everything at us," Pane said. "In the end, the voters said, 'Leave the Indians alone."'

Lombardi said that the Nevada companies' intense campaigning in California actually raised the ire of many California voters. "Every dollar they spent was another vote for us," he said.

Pane warned that Indian gaming interests were preparing to wage a "multifront war" in California and Washington against Nevada's gaming interests.

"The $8 billion that Nevada receives (annually) from California pockets is a big piece of their take," Pane said. "They know that, so they have a containment strategy. We'll be in an offensive mood to stop them."

He noted, however, that he believed it to be critical that Indian gaming forces seek bipartisan support for their efforts.

"There were forces in the Democratic Party that wanted to make Indian tribes their new union, and we resisted them," Pane said.

Jacob Coin, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association, accused Nevadans of ignoring the benefits that gaming had brought to Indian tribes across the country, such as improvements in education, health care and infrastructure. He also decried Nevada's argument that the tribes were seeking an unfair monopoly over the gaming industry in their state.

"Corporate interests have decided they want to package their anti-Indian sentiment as unfair competition, or leveling the playing field," Coin said. "When our future is as bright as yours, then we can talk about leveling the playing field."

Panelists also took issue with the contention that Indian gaming isn't properly regulated. Jim Faulkner, a political adviser to several tribes, claimed that the tribes were actively involved in self-regulation, and that states and the federal government also regulated the business.

"When these people say it's not regulated, that's just not so," Faulkner said.

During the investigation of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Coin said, "people in Nevada who probably never set foot in an Indian casino suddenly became experts on Indian gaming."

Meanwhile, Coin urged tribal leaders to press the political momentum gained by Proposition 5's electoral victory.

"Now, tribal people have accumulated enough of a (financial) resource to make a difference in the political realm," he said. "Now we have a chance to make a political impact, and it's about time that happened."

After the session, Lombardi toned down his anti-Nevada message considerably. He said that Nevada has little to fear from expanded Indian gaming, since the tribal casinos will be limited in scope.

"I sincerely hope the day is coming when there can be peace between Nevada and California Indian gaming interests," Lombardi said. "We are not the threat they perceive us to be. We would like to turn the flame down."

Lombardi pointed out that Indian gaming interests, who have clashed repeatedly with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, could have poured money into his opponent's campaign when Reid faced a tight re-election campaign, but refrained from doing so.

"We could have poured the money on against him, but we didn't, because we felt it was bad manners to become involved in the interests of another state."

archive