Voters Seem To Like Indians’ Bribe

The three Indian tribes sponsoring Initiative 651 in Washington state may be on to something.

They’re offering voters a rather modest payoff in exchange for approval of the initiative legalizing unrestricted casino gambling, including slot machines. The same initiative also would give the tribes a monopoly on slot machines and video gambling terminals.

The Spokane, Puyallup and Shoalwater Bay tribes figure they can bring in about $1.5 billion a year in gross revenues from slots.

And to overcome the state’s historic resistance to this final decline into wide-open gambling, all they would have to do is pay about 10 percent of those revenues to Washington voters.

Based on the turnout at the 1992 election, that would amount to $64 a year to each registered voter who had cast a ballot in the most recent general election. Even if the gross is a more realistic $1 billion, the payoff would be about $43.

In an election with lower turnout, the payoffs could reach $97 to each voter if the tribes do $1.5 billion in business.

Small change? Perhaps. But House Republicans made a huge deal over their proposed property tax reduction this year which would save the average homeowner about $30. In comparison, something in the range of $43 to $97 - times two for a married couple - makes the GOP’s tax-cutting seem insignificant and politically motivated.

So far, the outrage over what looks a lot like a bribe has been relegated to editorial pages and churches. Voters seem to like the idea - if the early success of signature-gathering is any indication.

Of course, if the tribes were to offer a state official a little cash in exchange for not enforcing some state regulation, the citizenry likely would be indignant. But as long as the payola goes directly to the people, it’s apparently OK.

Besides, it’s not a bribe, according to Russell Lafountaine, spokesman for the Yes on 651 campaign. The money, he says, is merely a means to “secure a partnership between the tribes and the people of Washington.”

Hmmmm. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires the states to bargain with tribes over gambling compacts. It permits the tribes only the same types of gambling allowed for non-Indians. But by a simple initiative, the tribes would get slot machines and would dictate the terms of a “compact” removing the state almost completely from the regulation of gambling. All for as little as $43.

The initiative also contains a few little twists that make it really special.

First, it reflects the internal squabbles between tribes that have agreed to work with the state and those that are holding out for slot machines. Under the initiative, the 11 tribes that already have casinos - or are preparing to open them - would be required to carry out the terms of their state agreements until they expire.

That would give the Spokanes, Puyallups and Shoalwaters a competitive advantage over neighboring tribes.

The measure also has an interesting fail-safe device.

If the Legislature gets greedy and decides to legalize slot machines or video poker off reservations, the payola deal would be off. That would make it politically difficult to legalize slot machines in the rest of the state because it would take money from voters’ pockets.

That aside, as long as we understand the expectations of the voters, we certainly could take this concept a little further.

What other “partnerships” could voters enter into for the fun and profit of all concerned? It takes just a little creativity to reach a point where the act of voting could be transformed from civic duty to a get-rich-quick scheme.

As of now, for instance, prostitution is illegal in Washington state. But if pimps and madams promised to split the profits with voters, would voters agree to legalize it? We could be talking about some real money here - what with the state’s ample supply of merchant seamen, military personnel and college students.

And why be such prudes about nude dancing? Following each full-contact Texas couch dance, the patron would slip $20 to the dancer and a $2 tip into the “voter box.” The money would go to voters who had agreed to get the government out of regulating topless dancing. You even could have the option of taking it out in trade.

Or how about supertankers in Puget Sound? For a share of the profits from the oil companies, couldn’t we be convinced to ignore our overwrought worries about a few spills here and there?

The three tribes also deserve some credit for accomplishing something previously thought impossible.

The specter of tribal-only slot machines has produced Citizens Against Unrestricted Gambling, an alliance that includes non-Indian gambling interests, tavern owners and the Christian Coalition.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Peter Callaghan McClatchy News Service