TRIBES CAN KEEP CASINOS WITHOUT THIS BAD INITIATIVE.

Byline: William Bill Campbell

ON Nov. 3, California voters can oppose Proposition 5 - a flawed, deceptive and dangerous ballot initiative that allows the proliferation of unregulated casino gambling - while still supporting the right of Indian tribes to operate casinos.

California tribes don't need Proposition 5 to reach their goal of self-sufficiency through gambling. By federal law, they can negotiate agreements with the state, called ``compacts,'' that allow tribal casino gambling that is limited, regulated and in conformance with state and local laws and regulations. The process also provides for local input on proposed casinos and mandatory allocation of some casino profits to offset the cost of oversight, public safety, traffic control and other impacts. Proposition 5 does none of these things.

So far, 11 California tribes have approved compacts with the state, allowing them to continue existing operations and even open new casinos.

So why Proposition 5?

A few of the richest tribes want voters to protect their $1.5 billion-a-year casino empire by legalizing their gambling operations. They want to continue operating tax-free casinos that are completely unlimited in scope and location, and subject to no outside regulation or oversight. In effect, they want to transform California into a wide-open gambling state.

This small group of very wealthy gambling tribes already has pumped a staggering $43 million into Proposition 5 on the pretense of protecting Indian sovereignty, pulling poor Indians out of poverty and off welfare, and helping them get electricity, housing, schools and health care. One tribe with fewer than 30 reservation residents, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, has put up more than $22 million - almost $1 million for every man, woman and child and half of the total funding for this campaign.

Never in the history of California or national initiative elections has a single special interest group spent even close to this amount with little or no public or media scrutiny - not the tobacco, petroleum, alcohol or the insurance industries.

Despite claims by initiative backers, most California Indians actually get little or nothing from this initiative. The $60 million spent so far on their ad campaign should put to rest any claims that the sponsors of this initiative are ``poor Indians.'' In reality, poor nongaming tribes stand to benefit far more under the compacts that federal law requires gambling tribes to negotiate with the state than from the meager handouts from the wealthy gambling tribes provided in the initiative. The most any nongaming tribe could get under Proposition 5 is about $145,000 a year. With a compact, tribes get 199 gaming machines that they can either operate themselves or lease to the gaming tribes for up to $1 million a year. As an exercise in sovereignty and self-reliance, which sounds better to you?

Also, contrary to the claims of Proposition 5 proponents, and despite years of tribal gambling in our state, more California Indians get welfare benefits today than 10 years ago. And the wealthiest gambling tribes will get almost $4 million in federal grants this year from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

It is noteworthy that the efforts of the wealthy tribes to influence California politics do not stop with Proposition 5. This year alone, they have given more than $2.5 million to candidates for the state Legislature and statewide office.

Proposition 5 is bad for California for many reasons. The initiative:

Puts no limits on Indian casino gambling.

Legitimizes games that many tribes operate illegally under state and federal laws and which are illegal elsewhere in California.

Puts no restriction on the size or scope of casinos, which could be built by any recognized tribe on any federal trust land anywhere in California.

Exempts tribal casinos from state and local worker protection laws, health and safety laws or zoning and building codes.

Leaves Indian casinos exempt from state and local taxes or fees on estimated annual profits of more than $630 million.

Makes no provision for sharing revenues with state and local governments to mitigate off-reservation costs incurred by large casino operations.

Proposition 5 is bad for California. Voters can oppose the initiative and still strongly support the compact process that allows Indian gaming to continue with proper regulation. Unlike Proposition 5, that is a sound choice for the future.