Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

I'm disgusted by yet another example of special interests winning the day, but this is an interesting one.

For instance, why is the deal the government's business? Particularly because Indian tribes are technically sovereign nations -- which is why they can set up casinos in the first place. If this were anyone but Indians or Democratic contributors, wouldn't conservatives be saying the government has no role here?

I would have supported the McCain bill that would guarantee most proceeds go to the tribe. given the terrible history of Indian business arrangements. But there's no escaping the fact that it was more than a little paternalistic. If the tribes want to make bad business deals, isn't that their business?

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

The beneficiary of the Indian casinos were meant to be Indians.

Originally Posted by BuckNaked";p=&quot

OK rebellion?

In 1988 the gaming act was set up so that reservations could set up some small casinos, slot machines, a little poker, some bingo, so they could make a living for themselves therefore weaning them off of government subsidies. Anyone who fit the criteria, had money and managerial experience to set them (gambling establishments) up could provide the funding necessary to get the ball rolling and the administration/manager skills to keep it going.

How am I doing so far?

Since government wanted them to become self sustaining, without using government funds to finance the venture, they allowed these outside entities to get involved. The main purpose of the agreements that were perfectly acceptable in '88, was so that no matter what happened the tribe would not have to put up their land as collateral, and even if the venture failed, only the investors would lose, they (the tribes) would still assume the rights to their tribal land. What was not foreseen was these entities coming in and setting up such extravagant large scale casinos that would turn this kind of profit.

Now that the profits are so high, the Indians are by coincidence making more money than they ever would have under the original presumption of small scale operations the government thought would result.

Doesn't the tribes still assume the rights to everything after 5-7 years?

And after that 5-7 years do they not reap the benefits of "all" the profits, or am I missing something here?

The only reason I see for re-evaluating (changing) the act is the same reason McCain and other Arizona republicans have been trying make changes since '88. So that they can get a larger share of the cut for the government. When the politicians in Arizona found out the kind of money that was being generated, they have done everything in their power to get things changed. Excuse me if I don't share your belief that republicans are the good guys in this matter. The tribes have seen the way republicans have tried to impede the casino operations from the beginning.

In the early 90's the governor of Arizona even confiscated slot machines trying to blackmail the tribes into reshuffling the deck, so the state would get a better cut. That might be why they are more interested in dealing with democrats than wasting their lobbying funds on republicans who are obviously not looking out for the best interests of the tribe! Something else that is suspect is that all the new resort hotels built in Arizona in the late 70's and early 80's, were pre-wired to accommodate state of the art slot machines. In fact all the floors in the "ballrooms" have plates in the floors under all the carpets so the slots only need be plugged in, and away they go. Only one thing that wasn't expected, the federal reservation gambling act.

So here we are today, where lobbying and special interests are responsible for deciding/determining legislation. It's a problem not only with democrats but with republicans as well, so you can't cry foul when the other guy might get the upper hand with a practice that is prominent among both parties without being a hypocrite.

Seems like you must stand against the practice, whichever party is involved and recognize it for what it is. Lobbying is wrong, it is the practice of purchasing/bribing the vote of "our" elected representatives plain and simple. You either stand up against the practice or don't whine when it isn't your party involved!

Are you against this unethical practice rebellion, even when republicans are involved, or is it only a big deal when democrats do it?

Parties are irrelevant when it comes to this practice with me. If you are an elected official and you sell your vote to the highest bidder you are at worse a traitor, and/or at least a criminal, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Agreed, but so? Shouldn't the tribes be allowed to decide how they want to monetize their legal right to open a casino? Especially when most of the tribes were cash-poor and had no means of financing the initial construction and operation?

Originally Posted by BuckNaked";p=&quot

The agreement was for the money people, the one’s who met the criteria, to get up to 40%. If 40% represents hundreds of millions of dollars then that isn’t a loophole! It is as I stated an unexpected windfall. In any case the more the non-Indians make during the 5-7 year period the more the Indians make. That’s the way it works?