Tribal gaming all comes down to people

OPINION – “The Different Worlds of California Card Rooms and Tribal Casinos” is a captivating title that immediately sets the stage for a deep dive into the distinct landscapes of California’s gaming industry. It highlights the inherent differences between these two sectors, reflecting a reality where public perception and legal frameworks put them worlds apart. The title aptly prepares the reader for an exploration of these differences, emphasizing the unique challenges and privileges each face.

Now, let’s delve into why this division is not only recognized but also sanctioned by the public’s understanding, the state constitution, legal mandates and federal law.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) creates a structured legal environment for tribal gaming.  IGRA mandates that gaming revenue is used in specific ways to benefit the community, such as funding tribal government operations or programs, providing for the general welfare of the tribe and its members, and promoting tribal economic development and charitable contributions to the broader community. This framework contrasts with corporate gaming which is focused more on generating profits primarily for shareholders, who may not be tied to the localities where the casinos operate and have no oversite on how they spend their revenues. This leads to a different approach to management, business risks and investments, with tribal gaming more rooted in community advancement.

The article from Capitol Weekly presents a complex overview of the gaming industry in California, emphasizing the legal and regulatory differences between tribal casinos and card rooms. It traces the history and current state of gaming, underscoring the unique challenges card rooms face due to stringent state regulations. The article suggests that tribal casinos operate with more autonomy and fewer restrictions, highlighting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians as a success story within tribal gaming. The article raises questions about fairness and competition in California’s gaming landscape and examines the political dynamics at play, including legislative efforts that could impact the future of card rooms and tribal casinos alike.

In response to the article’s perspective and to provide a balanced view, it is just not that complex.  It all comes down to the people. It is important to reiterate that the residents of California have clearly expressed, through democratic processes, their preference for tribal gaming. This preference is reflected in state laws that strictly regulate card rooms and the decisions to keep Las Vegas-style gaming within federally recognized reservations. The public’s resistance to the expansion of card rooms, despite promises of local revenue, indicates a broader societal stance that aligns with current regulations.

Tribal nations have a unique status in America’s legal framework, recognized since the earliest days of the republic and enshrined in the Constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court. This recognizes tribes as distinct tribal sovereign entities, different from regular business operations such as card rooms. This foundational understanding is crucial in discussions about tribal gaming and governance, distinguishing the deep-rooted heritage and rights of Native American tribes from other types of gaming entities.

The suggestion that tribes are freely operating without oversight misrepresents the regulated nature of tribal gaming, which adheres to both federal standards and the mandate of California’s voters. Therefore, any debate around gaming should take into account the legal framework, public opinion that amended the state constitution to allow Indian gaming, and the sustained support for tribal government sovereignty and self-reliance that tribal gaming embodies.

The quote from the Capitol Weekly article reflects a misunderstanding of the distinct roles and regulations governing tribal gaming compared to private card clubs in California. The author’s indifference to the “privileges” granted to Native American tribes overlooks the fact that tribal gaming is not merely a commercial enterprise but an exercise of tribal sovereignty and a means to self-reliance. Unlike private gaming, focused on making money, which primarily benefits individual owners and shareholders, tribal gaming’s purpose is about the people, it extends beyond profit. It is deeply rooted in community well-being and supports a broad spectrum of social, educational, and health-related initiatives. Indian gaming in California is widely regarded by the public as a meaningful contributor to social improvement, reflecting a broader appreciation for its distinctive and beneficial role within the state. This understanding by the people is fundamental and contrasts starkly with the perspective that seeks parity between tribal and private gaming without acknowledging the underlying principles and the public’s stance.

Dr. Rod Wilson, author of “The Native American Dream,” brings over thirty years of collaboration with tribal governments, advising them on their path to self-reliance and effective government interaction.

NOTE: All opinions expressed in this forum are solely those of the author and do not express any view or position held by Capitol Weekly or any member of its staff.