Republican losses in House may change Minn. gambling debate

Ashley H. Grant

Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 | 9:12 a.m.

ST. PAUL -- Colin Berg was minding his own political business, running against a first-term Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) representative in west-central Minnesota when the ads started.

The radio spots and mailings from Republican groups suggested American Indian tribes pay more of their casino profits to the state, as tribes in other states did.

The ads were designed to help Berg, but in a district that included the Upper Sioux Community, they were a risk he didn't want. He told party officials the ads were a bad idea.

"I was upset," he said. "I called and complained."

Berg lost on Nov. 2, along with 13 other Republicans vying for House seats held by their party last session. Some Indian leaders claim that's a public rejection of Republican plans to change gambling policy in the state. A mandate or not, it will almost surely change the debate in the Legislature next year.

The ads were part of a statewide GOP push in the final weeks before the election, paid for by the state Republican Party and the House Republican Campaign Committee.

One radio spot featured Gov. Tim Pawlenty saying, "I'm Tim Pawlenty and I know that tribal gaming has brought in billions of dollars. But it's time that the state gets a fair deal like they have in other states and that the tribes should pay some of that money to the state."

Pawlenty had publicly said the tribes should contribute at least $350 million a year to the state treasury in exchange for a continued casino monopoly. If not, he hasn't ruled out bringing Las Vegas-style gambling into the state.

Before the ads ran, Berg, son of longtime Sen. Charlie Berg, had planned to ask for a meeting with Helen Blue-Redner, chairwoman of the Upper Sioux Community just outside Granite Falls, to talk about the issues facing tribal members.

"I thought, 'There goes my opportunity,' " Berg said. "It would have been an awkward time."

It's not clear if he lost because of the ads, but many of the Republicans who lost on Election Day were in districts where the casino ads ran.

Pawlenty rejected the notion that making tribal casino profit an issue contributed to the defeats, and he said "It may have had an impact on stopping further losses."

But many tribal leaders disagree and hope the Republican setbacks on Election Day foreshadow a kinder legislative session for them in 2005.

"We're thrilled," Blue-Redner said. "We're very, very happy about the Democrats getting 13 seats in the House."

Many tribes believed so strongly that DFLers would continue to be more friendly toward their interests that they put some money behind it.

The Lower Sioux Educational Fund, for instance, gave $98,850 through Oct. 18 to the DFL Party, DFL candidates and other DFL-leaning groups.

Political action committees from other tribes including the Fond du Lac and Mille Lacs bands of Ojibwe, the Prairie Island and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux bands and the Bois Forte Ojibwe also contributed and also favored DFlers.

Gordy Adams Jr., vice chairman at Bois Forte in far north-central Minnesota, said he was offended and frustrated by Republican campaigning on tribal casinos.

"It is basically getting to be widespread thought throughout Indian country that the Republican agenda is out to quash Indian people," he said.

Ads like the ones run before the election just reinforce that sentiment, he said.

"The election results should send the message to Republicans that people don't want an expansion of gambling," Adams said.

Some tribes, he said, were ready to talk with the governor about mutually beneficial ideas, but when Pawlenty suggested a figure of $350 million -- which the tribes say is far more than the quarter of their revenue as Pawlenty has estimated -- all bets were off. The tribes now pay only $13,636 per year each, basically to cover state regulation.

In the past few years, tribal leaders have watched and worried as the Legislature's resistance softened to altering the gambling landscape in the state.

Two years ago, the GOP-led House passed a bill that would have allowed slot machines at the Canterbury Park racetrack in Shakopee. It still has the strong backing of many Republicans, but hasn't been able to get past the DFL-controlled Senate.

Last year a proposal for a new casino to be built by two northwestern Minnesota tribal governments -- White Earth and Red Lake -- passed a key House committee. Since then, the Leech Lake band has said it would be interested in joining the coalition.

A proposal to allow a Las Vegas-owned casino to be built near the Mall of America Minnesota has so far has received less support, but some such proposal is likely to be on the table again this year.

While few think an erosion of the Republican House majority will take the gambling issue off the table in 2005, having more Democrats in the House may push gambling lower on the agenda.

Democrats generally have opposed expanding gambling beyond where it's already permitted, in part because it could take business away from the 11 tribes that have relatively successful casinos now in the state.

Pawlenty repeatedly has said expanding gambling beyond existing casinos isn't his first choice. He'd prefer to negotiate with the tribes to figure out a way they could make more money, and give a larger portion to the state.

"We want the tribes to be our partners," he said. But if that doesn't happen, "we have to explore other options."

DFL leaders say they're all for negotiating something that's good for the state as long as it's good for the tribes.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, thinks it's inevitable that gambling in Minnesota will change "some how, some way." But, he said, that should happen diplomatically rather than in a "heavy-handed, punitive way."

Rep. Matt Entenza, whose DFL members now number only two fewer than the Republican majority, was more blunt: "The public has no appetite for Las Vegas-style casinos."