A discusson on gambling, government

By Patricia Lopez

Star Tribune

      Should Minnesota's Indian tribes be allowed to maintain a monopoly on casino-style gambling? If so, should they be required to share some of those revenues with the state and with other, poorer tribes? The Star Tribune explored these and other questions with House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, and two representatives of the Prairie Island Indian Community, owner of the Treasure Island Casino near Red Wing: Ron Johnson, vice president of the Prairie Island Tribal Council, and Henry Buffalo, the tribe's counsel. Here are excerpts of their remarks:

      On the changing politics of gambling

      Johnson: We were given a compact from the state in good faith ... I think it was assumed we wouldn't succeed in gaming. Now you have the bad economy and successful Indian casinos, and they want part of what we have.

      Sviggum: Times have changed dramatically in the last 15 years. We have some state budget needs right now that are fairly important. Other states are receiving some gaming resources ... we get nothing. The American Indian casinos have become very significant contributors to the political side of the ledger, mostly to the Democrats, to the extent that I have to wonder why the [Senate] Democrats simply will not allow a gaming issue to be considered. All those things make a difference.

      On whether tribes should share profits with the state

      Buffalo: Is it the tribes who created economic problems? We've been the bright star in continuing employment, with 14,000 jobs statewide and 30,000 jobs indirectly by gaming. We're not responsible for what happened to the economy or for state spending. How is it fair to blame Indian gaming for those problems and then to say that Indians have some obligation to deal with this?

      Johnson: We're the largest employers in Goodhue County. One out of every 15 jobs is attributed to the casino. My biggest concern is my employees. If expansion creates layoffs, it will create an even higher unemployment rate.

      Sviggum: Should the state receive some revenue the way other states do? I think yes. Why could we not have some competitive gaming at a current venue where gaming takes place, with revenue that would be taxed ... at a rate that's about 40 percent? That just seems fair to me. ... Now if we renegotiate the compact and it says only Native American casinos, but for that there's a tax rate and sharing of revenues, that's a give-and-take I'd be open to. ... We've got a whole huge business out here that isn't paying any revenues. I know they do some sharing, small as it is, in our communities.

      On revenue sharing or new opportunities for poorer tribes

      Sviggum: The Red Lake and White Earth tribes, which represent 65 percent of the Native American population in the state, receive extremely small resources from gaming. I don't think that's fair to them. ... We have tribes who are "winners" who so far have been unwilling to do revenue-sharing with other tribes. There are things that may not have been considered 15 years ago. Should there be fairness among the tribes? Yes.

      Buffalo: Each tribe is individual. It's up to the tribes on how they use their revenues to move forward and take care of their own communities. It's kind of hard to say all should take care of one tribe. The state is looking at commingling our funds to bail out another tribe. That's like asking one bank to bail out the bank across the street because it's failing.

      Johnson: It would hurt the Prairie Island tribe, I know. It [a state casino in partnership with poor rural tribes] would create a loss of jobs, pull them from rural areas and put them into the metro areas. It's rural areas that Prairie Island has developed the partnership with.

      On a proposal to ban video gaming

      Johnson: It would eliminate thousands of jobs and force us back onto welfare rolls.

      Buffalo: It's a piece of strategy being used to force the tribes to negotiate. It really stands right up there with the methods the federal government has used in the past -- alcohol, chicken pox in blankets. This attempt to threaten to ban slot machines is right up there. It's negotiating by putting a gun to the heads of the tribes. The tribes have experienced this through 500 years of dealing with European-Americans. It doesn't affect us anymore. They should stop thinking this is going to be an effective way in dealing with the tribes.

      On what might move negotiations forward

      Johnson: That's up to the state. We're not approaching them for a new deal. They're approaching us. ...He [Pawlenty] needs to step up and deal with us on a government-to-government relationship. He hasn't done that. It steps on our hearts and our souls and our heritage to have him do it this way. We consider this compact a treaty. If they want to break another treaty, they can. We will survive. We have a strong heart. It's like they want us to jump off a cliff without a parachute. That's how I feel about his comments so far. We're doing good for Minnesota in our way.

      Sviggum: I assume the state could look at [authorizing] different types of gaming. Maybe say that no other gaming activities, including privately run, would be permitted. But there would need to be an end-date to the compact.

      On what the Legislature will do

      Sviggum: At this point, the best I can get from our caucus is the racino effort, because that is not, quote, the expansion of gambling. A new site, whether it be Mall of America, Anoka County, any new venue, would be considered an expansion of gaming by our caucus.

      On whether the tribes will renegotiate

      Johnson: Time will tell.

Star Tribune: www.startribune.com