Indian gamers optimistic, will fight regulation

Thursday, April 29, 1999 | 12:35 p.m.

But many attending the National Indian Gaming Association's three-day conference and trade show have other, meatier issues on their minds, from a national commission's soon-due report on the impact of gambling to a just-filed lawsuit challenging Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's authority to settle gambling-related disputes between state regulators and tribes.

Indian gaming officials are wary of anticipated recommendations from the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, expecting another slap at Indian casino operations. They are fearful it may recommend that Congress impose additional regulation or that Indian gaming revenues be taxed.

On the other hand, they are optimistic that Indian gaming will continue to be the vehicle that helps many tribes nationwide move toward economic self-sufficiency.

Tribal officials and NIGA colleagues hope Babbitt prevails, sicne they consider the rules he approved beneficial.

Arizona hasn't joined the lawsuit, but Stephen Hart, director of Arizona's Department of Gaming, said a state and its tribes "know better what's good for them than does the Department of the Interior or the federal court system."

"We believe again that the Congress in fact was cognizant that it extended these authorities to the secretary," said Jacob Coin, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association. Its meeting at the Tucson Convention Center ends today.

The study commission, appointed by Congress, has been conducting hearings for more than a year. Its report is due June 18.

Among other things, the nine-member commission is "asserting that Indian gaming is unregulated, it's untaxed and therefore unfair" to commercial non-Indian gambling, Coin said.

"They seem to have taken a very definite turn against Indian gaming and have essentially skewed their perspectives against gaming," he said.

"Who are they to make that assessment whether it's unfair for Las Vegas or Atlantic City? It's not their charge to make that determination, so we question certainly the validity of their study and what they stand to produce."

Tuesday in Washington, the commission approved a draft report calling for states to consider a moratorium on further expansion until more is known about legalized gambling's effects.

"We have no reason to expect that it's going to be anything but a very negative slam against Indian gaming," Coin said.

He noted that five of its members were critical of Indian gaming even before being named to the commission, citing among them Terrence Lanni, chairman and chief executive officer of Las Vegas' MGM Grand.

Calls to Kay James, the commission's chairwoman and government dean at Pat Robertson's Regent University, were not returned Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the American Gaming Association, which represents the commercial casino industry, declined to comment.

Hart said the study has been a long time in coming.

"I think it'll be an important document. We're anxious for it to get out and published so we can review it," he said. "Hopefully, it will have some good suggestions."

The gaming industry, including Indian and non-Indian casinos, bingo parlors, charitable games, bookmaking, state lotteries and parimutuel betting, produced revenues of nearly $51 billion in 1997, according to industry figures.

Of that, 198 Indian tribes in 28 states operated 310 gaming facilities, earning roughly $7 billion.

Mary Ann Antone, southern Arizona's Tohono O'odham tribal member on the NIGA, said the belief that tribal casino proceeds are untaxed is a misperception.

"We pay a lot of state taxes on products" purchased from vendors, and tribes employ both tribal members and non-Indians, she said.

Every cent the tribal gaming facilities generate is turned over to tribal governments for essential governmental services, Coin said.

What's more, he said, as sovereign governmental entities, tribes are exempt from state or federal income taxes on gaming operations, as states are from income taxes on lottery profits.

Under federal law, tribal governments have created their own regulatory commissions while states have a regulatory role over casino operations under tribal-state compacts.

Coin said tribes should remain the principal regulators.

Hart disagreed.

"This is a high-risk, cash-intensive business, and I think it's a business that benefits from the checks and balances of having multiple governmental entities involved in regulation and oversight," he said.