Campaign against Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97
It's unfair to let four powerful tribes control one-third of the state's Indian gaming pie. Please force the Legislature to negotiate a better deal that is fair to all tribes. Vote no on 94-97."
ANALYSIS: The essential argument of the ad is true. California still has numerous tribes that face searing poverty and have reaped little gain from Indian gambling. But that doesn't apply to the narrator in this ad. Leroy Miranda is the vice chair of the wealthy Pala Band of Mission Indians, which operates nearly 2,300 slot machines at its North San Diego County casino. Pala has contributed $6.5 million to the no campaign.
1) Congress intended Indian gaming to help the tribes that chose to pursue it, not every tribe. Some tribes continue to be poor because of their remoteness and lack of resources and the government's failure to live up to its obligations. That has nothing to do with Indian gaming.
2) At most the compacts may lower the profits of a few gaming tribes near the "big four." They won't "devastate" or even affect most of California's 100-plus gaming tribes. United Auburn, for instance, is hundreds of miles from the big four and doesn't compete with them.
3) The notion of a fixed "Indian gaming pie"--in which gains for some tribes mean losses for others--is false. In reality, the California market for gaming is underserved. Therefore, adding slot machines won't take business from some tribes and give it to others. It'll bring in more business for everyone.
Below: "Pala can operate an unlimited number of slot machines while Pechanga can operate only 2,000. That's unfair to us, not to Pechanga. Boo-hoo."