No on Expanded Gaming: California Congress, Time to Apologize and Come Out Against the Propositions

To all our Elected Congress in California:

We are just over three weeks away from our February 5th vote on expanded gaming in California. It's just enough time for all of you who voted for these compacts to stand up and say:

"We're sorry. We made a mistake. Vote No and give us a chance to fix it."

You must know that you have done wrong by the people of California. You have given way too much away, in terms of gaming revenues to tribes that have a monopoly on slot machines. You did not make the tribes pay for the privelege of having that monopoly. The people of CA, 3 million strong, had to act, via a referendum to halt your mistakes from becoming a reality.

Stand up, right now and let the people know that you will do better by us next time. You will gain the environmental needs, you will get enforcement capability, you will gain audit power, on OUR terms, you will gain civil rights for all native Americans that the tribes have disenrolled or kept out in moratoriums and you will gain a much higher percentage of the net win, after a better agreement of what net win means. Compare the list above, to what you got in these compacts and see which is better for California.

It's better to admit that you allowed yourselves to see a small amount of money, but blinded yourselves to the mint of funds that could be available to our people.

Here are wonderful words from Sheila Kuehl that should be a guide to your conscience.

I'll just rise once on all of these. I'm going to vote no on all the compacts with the exception of the Yurok compact, and I'll tell you why.
Many years ago when we asked to begin to ratify these compacts, it was a very, very good thing for the tribes. I didn't think it was a very good thing for California, because gambling is never a good thing for a state or a nation. It eats away, it's an addiction, and so to sort of compromise, we said, well this is really going to help these poor tribes get on their feet. And boy, did it.

They're so on their feet that billions of dollars are being made every year. Well, good for them. But I can't vote for an expansion of gambling. I can't vote for organizations that now refuse to take care of their workers in any fair way that we require of virtually everyone else in the state.
I can't vote for a compact that says, "we'll; give you money state if you vote for this compact, but we won't allow you to come into see if we are giving you the right amount of money."

I can't vote for compacts for tribes that aren't even sharing with all of their own members the largess that they win off the gambling addiction that they win off the gambling addiction of those who go to the clubs. OP: See www.pechanga.info or http://blog.myspace.com/paulinahunterofpechanga

So I would encourage any of you who agree with any of those points to stand up and say no to the expansion of gambling in the state, to stand up and say no to these tribes that have indeed pulled themselves up by our bootstraps. And to virtually in the future continue to say no to this expansion.

Congresspeople, The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians is one of the worst violators of civil rights in this state, along with Chukchansi. Yet, you, have not spoken out against it. You act like disenrollment is akin to getting booted from the PTA. Go to www.tribalcorruption.com and LEARN about what is happening. Aren't you embarrassed for not standing up for civil rights?

RENOUNCE the compacts, and I'll spotlight you here and on http://www.pechanga.info/. Tell us you are now revisiting your choice and want us to know about it. DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

Pechanga Chairman Macarro AGAIN Caught Lying

OP: This time it's in the latest commercial that he's fronting.

From John Gomez, AIRRO:

The Big 4 Tribes sent out a new bi-lingual mailer asking California voters to vote Yes on their sweetheart deals. The mailer, entitled "Sharing with those in need" states that the gaming tribes will share tens of millions of dollars with tribes that have little or no gaming revenue. In fact, Mark Macarro claims that "limited gaming... has brought prosperity to our people...lifting us out of poverty..." Macarro goes on to state that ".., we believe all members of our sovereign nations should share in our prosperity."

This all sounds warm and fuzzy, and if it were true, Indian Gaming in California could be considered a success. Unfortunately, the claims made in the new mailer are misrepresentations of the actual circumstances surrounding the Big 4 deals.

Currently, non-gaming tribes receive $1.1 million a year under the 1999 compacts signed with the State. However, the Big 4 deals would provide billions of dollars for the Big 4 tribes over the life of the agreements, and the non-gaming tribes will not get a penny more than what was already allocated in the 1999 compacts. You see, the new deals fail to provide additional funding for non-gaming tribes. The rich get richer, and the poorer, smaller tribes make do with less.

And, while it is true that the members of the Big 4 tribes would prosper immensely, Macarro failed to state that the number of members in his own tribe, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, has been reduced drastically since Props 5 and 1A allowed for gaming on California Indian reservations. In 2004 and 2006, just prior to tribal elections in which Macarro ran for re-election as Tribal Chair, a total of nearly 300 members were kicked out of the tribe.

As a result, Macarro and his cronies won their re-election bids and all remaining members of the tribe saw their per capita payments increase from $15,000 per month to the nearly $40,000 per month they receive now. While Macarro and his followers prosper, those who were kicked out of the tribe have been denied medical care, elder and child benefits, and education assistance that were provided based on their status as tribal members. Most must now avail themselves of State and federal government programs at tax payer expense.

Membership does indeed have its privileges, and, as far as I can tell, those who would actually benefit from these deals are members of the Big 4 tribes themselves- a small number of California Indians which, based on the actions of Macarro and his cronies, is getting smaller.

OP: In KNBC's WITHOUT A TRIBE, Macarro was caught lying in the FIRST 15 seconds of the piece. During a General Meeting of the Temecula Band, Macarro, is clarifying a petition brought forth by CNIGA President Anthony Miranda to stop all disenrollment activities, he said, when asked if this included the Hunter Family, "ALL MEANS ALL" and yet, he conspired with his tribal council to unconstitutionally eliminate the Hunter family. (Pechanga Constitution and Bylaws.

BILLIONS AND BILLIONS to Big 4 Tribes while others languish in Poverty

WHY aren't more tribes doing better NOW? Revenue sharing trust is not doing as well as Pechanga would have you believe.

This is NOT what voters intended. Not ONE of the four propositions will give MORE to tribes without casinos!

VOTE NO.

Media Breakfast Club of Los Angeles backs up Mabuhayradio.com

This is excellent news! The MBC of Los Angeles will back up Mabuhayradio.com and their editorial against Propositions 94-97! The Filipino American community will be using this election to exercise their political clout in getting both Hillary Clinton elected as California's nominee for the Democratic party AND the expanded gaming propositions voted down.

Media Breakfast Club Follows MabuhayRadio and Endorses the “No” Votes on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97

The Media Breakfast Club (MBC) of Los Angeles agreed to back up the editorial of the www.mabuhayradio.com in regard to the Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. During the MBC’s 916th meeting at the FACLA Social Hall yesterday morning, the members and guests unanimously adopted the common stand of casting “No” votes on the said propositions.
Bobby M. Reyes, the www.mabuhayradio.com editor, is also the MBC founder. He introduced a resolution calling for the “No” votes on the four propositions involving four American-Indian casino operators in Southern California.

The issues were discussed at the FACLA, which is the acronym for the Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles, the oldest Filipino-American organization that was founded in 1945.
Sir Al Aquino, the present chapter commander of the Order of the Knights of Rizal, was the moderator at the MBC meeting. Mr. Aquino, who is also the vice mayor of the Philippine Town, Inc., presented his arguments that backed up Mr. Reyes’ resolution.
Edward Hasal, one of the guests at the MBC meeting, pledged to support the “No” votes on the four Indian-casino propositions. He asked also the MBC-meeting participants to vote "No” on Proposition 93. Mr. Hasal is the marketing director and senior health-plan specialist of the Option Plus Insurance Services, Inc. He attended the MBC meeting to present the services of his company.
Sir Henry von Seyfried, the MBC co-chairman, also took up the cudgels for the opposition against Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. Mr. Von Seyfried, the first German-American commander of the Order of the Knights of Rizal, has been adopted by the MBC as an honorary Filipino in 2001. He was also a former post commander of the American Legion, Manila Post 464. Sir Henry said that he was campaigning against the four propositions not only with his German-American friends but also among his Filipino-American contacts.
Mr. Reyes agreed also to send the group’s “No” vote on the said four American-Indian propositions by e-mail to the thousands of Filipino-American screen names in California that the www.mabuhayradio.com has in its database. The MBC participants also decided to lobby the thousands of FACLA members, especially its senior-citizen members, to vote against the said propositions. # # #

MABUHAY RADIO and the Media Breakfast Club, THANK YOU on behalf of over 3,000 Native Americans who have been disenrolled by their tribes, so that the remaining members can become even richer!

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM BOBBY REYES:

We will prepare a third article about the fight against the obvious discriminatory practice of the Pechanga ruling clique in ousting many of its long-time members. We are finishing the research and perhaps with its release, we will begin a Filipino-led boycott of the Pechanga casino. We compare the said discriminatory practice to Hitler's Aryan-Race policy. You may be able to read more information about the issues mentioned in this e-mail at www.airro.org

NO on Prop. 94 95 96 97: These Propositions Aren't Worth the Gamble

Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle comes out against propositions 94-97.

These propositions really aren't worth the gamble

By Debra J. Saunders

San Francisco Chronicle
January 23, 2008 6:00 AM

"Protect hundreds of millions of dollars each year in our state budget by voting yes on Prop. 94, 95, 96 and 97," reads the ballot argument signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Basically, supporters are urging voters to approve Indian "gaming" compacts with four tribes because the new pacts, which would allow the big four tribal casinos to add 17,000 slot machines, would put more money in the state budget.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, each measure is expected to increase state revenues annually "probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030."
The whole exercise begs the question: If voters are supposed to approve more gambling to get more tax money, why not legalize gambling for everyone and really rake in the big bucks?
Why should members of four rich tribes enjoy a monopoly on new slots?
If Californians want more gambling to provide easy money for a strapped state government, think of all the dough to be made by opening up gambling outside of tribal lands.

Click the link above for the rest. But think of this: IF we don't get the $9 Billion they say, then we shouldn't vote for it. The LAO says we WON'T. So, we vote NO.

Pechanga Rolls Snake Eyes: NO on Prop. 94-97

The tribes aren't getting very far for all their millions trying to convince us that the deal the DID NOT want us to vote on, is now good for us.

Field Poll: Props. 94-97 Roll Snake Eyes

January 24th, 2008 by No Unfair Deals

With less than two weeks to go, the Field Poll released today finds the Big 4 tribes are betting the house on their gambling deals, and rolling snake eyes so far.Despite $82 million worth of campaign to push these deals, Field’s finding: 42% yes – 37% no, confirms what we’ve seen as well, the more voters know about these deals, the less they like them.

As voters find out that what we’re really voting on – 17,000 new slot machines, one of the largest expansions of gambling ever, for the benefit of just four wealthy tribes – that the tribes and only the tribes decide how much money they will give the state – and that these deals come at the expense of other smaller tribes, the surrounding communities and the workers at the Big 4 casinos – they’re finding plenty of reasons to vote no.

When Californians originally voted to approve Indian gaming, we didn’t intend to make four wealthy tribes, wealthier still. We didn’t intend to give just four tribes control over a third of all Indian gaming. And we didn’t intend to give all that to the Big 4 tribes – in exchange for a financial drop in the bucket, a contribution of less than one half of one percent of the General Fund.

These sweetheart deals promise us the moon. A closer look is showing voters that all these deals actually deliver is big money to the Big 4. And on Election Day, we think voters will send these compacts back to Sacramento for a new deal.

This is the critical part California. A NO vote does NOT mean that Tribal Gaming will end, it means that, the Big FOUR tribes will have to settle for the HUNDRED$ of MILLION$ they are making now, until they negotiate a deal that is better for Californians. You can't believe that the tribes won't come back and tighten up the details to get it approved. There are only 1800 tribal members since Pechanga kicked out 25% and are keeping out 4-500 more via an unconstitutional moratorum (against the TRIBE'S Constitution and Bylaws). They will take a deal where the state gets more, say 25% on all slots and better auditing and less ambiguous language. Because the tribes at 25% will still get $28 BILLION or $15.5 million EACH.

Vote NO.

LATimes: Yes on Gaming Expansion and My Takedown

The Los Angeles Times gives a Yes endorsement on Expanded Gaming.

Here is my analysis of the LATimes editorial which is YES on Props. 94, 95, 96, 97

In an amazingly well thought out, well sourced and compelling editorial, the LATimes gives its endorsement on expanded gaming. Here is their convincing argument conveniently displayed under a YES on Expanded Gaming Banner, paid for by the Big 4 Tribes: There is no reason for the state to back out. Vote yes on Proposition 94, 95, 96 and 97.

OP: The state is NOT backing out. The people of California are having their say. While the ballot measure may have been sponsored by anti-expansion funds, 3,000,000 Californians signed the petitions. It’s OUR propositions now, not horse tracks and other tribes. And, remember, there are over 3,000 Indians who have been forcibly removed from their tribes since the advent of Indian Gaming, by these tribes and others, this is a civil rights issue, as Pechanga should NOT be rewarded for violating the rights of their people.

LAT: All four already were covered by compacts that grant them and other tribes exclusive rights to operate slot machines in California.

OP: So? This is completely different and a NO vote will not change the compacts that the tribes are currently working under. These four tribes will continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars each year. A no vote will not allow an expansion which will make these four tribes the Wal-Mart of gaming.

LAT:The new agreements expand the number of machines and, the tribes expect, the amount of revenue they take in; the agreements provide that 15% to 25% of the take, depending on a complex formula, will be remitted to the state.

OP: A better compact would clearly spell out the formula as to how we get paid. The state should be clear. And, if the state taxes the lottery at 83%, how can they claim that 15% is a good deal? A better deal for the state would be to collect 25-40% of the next 3,000 machines, and reduce that for the next level of machines. We should get more money up front, and if the tribes feel that the extra machines (up to 7,500) are so profitable, let them have those extra at a reduced cost.

LAT: Predictions that the state will reap more than $9 billion from these agreements may be on the rosy side because they are based on assumptions that more gamblers with more money to spend will flock to reservations.

OP: MAY BE on the rosy side? The Legislative Analyst said they will NOT meet these numbers. So then, what is the real number? Should we as voters say, “well I know they say $9 billion, but that isn’t true, so we should vote YES anyway? I think not. For the state to get $9 billion, for our 33,000,000 people, the tribes will get $36 BILLION for its 1800 people! It’s 1800 because the Pechanga tribe has thrown out 25% of their tribe and are keeping another large percentage out via an illegal moratorium. (Against the tribes own constitution and bylaws)

LAT Still, opponents are overplaying their hand. They claim that the tribes have exclusive control over how much to send the state. Not true. The State Gaming Agency will audit each quarterly payment, and although The Times would prefer those audits to be publicly available, we find the audit and dispute procedures acceptable.

OP: As a sovereign government, the tribes can and HAVE kept auditors out. They also have control over what the auditors will get. “Two sets of books?” And THIS STORY says there are still questions of payments

LAT: Voters would be foolish to believe that gambling will rescue the state from its perpetual fiscal crises.

OP: Then why in their first commercials, did the Big 4 tribes insinuate that these deals would wipe out our deficit? They won’t, only being a half-penny’s worth to our budget, while increasing the social ills to our citizens. And besides, there is a Bush recession coming. Still think that the people will have all this money to spend on gambling? And there is still the unanwered questions as to what happened to the compacts when they were sent to the Feds. It smells fishy.
See Captains Quarters for more

LAT: But it does bring in revenue while also bringing much-needed wealth to impoverished indigenous Californians

OP: Don’t make me laugh. The Pechanga Indians are currently making $40,000 per month, that’s $480, 000 per year, which could TRIPLE thanks to them taking away per capita from the 25% of their tribe that was eliminated. And, the tribe is keeping rightful members out, via an unconstitutional (Pechanga Constitutions) moratorium. Also, the Pechanga tribe, among others have tried to keep smaller tribes from getting compacts. Ask yourselves this question: Who will gain more power with our legislators, rich tribes getting richer, or impoverished tribes waiting for their chance at the table?

Vote NO to Pechanga and NO to Expanded Gaming.

Please see these sites to learn more:

http://www.pechanga.info/
http://www.tribalcorruption.com/

http://blog.myspace.com/paulinahunterofpechanga

San Jose Mercury News Says STOP GAMBLING EXPANSION

As the awareness of the gambling expansion propositions, that give entirely too much of California's money away to four tribes grows to 70%, more newpapers come to the side of NO on Pechanga and NO to expanded gambling.

Here is part of the San Jose Mercury's editorial:

It's real money, but a small percentage of the state's current $14.5 billion budget shortfall. Overall, income from the compacts would be no more than half of 1 percent of the budget.
For the state to get $200 million, Californians will have to lose more than $800 million at the slots. Some might have been lost in Las Vegas anyway. But much of it will come out of other entertainment spending in local communities, and some will come out of mortgage payments, college savings or productive business investments.
Gambling addiction splits families and ruins lives, and a spike in the amount of gambling will take a toll. San Jose saw this during its last major expansion of cardroom gambling in the 1990s. After Bay 101 opened, specializing in Asian games, local human service agencies saw waves of Asian domestic violence victims - a rarity before - and families in financial distress.
Casinos have made some tribes, like these four, extremely rich.

A fund spreads some of the profits to non-gaming tribes, but many Native Americans still languish in poverty, and these new compacts will not be much help. They're definitely not what Californians signed up for when they approved Indian gaming in 1998 to help struggling tribes.

At the governor's request, the federal Department of the Interior has published the new gaming compacts in the Federal Register, which makes them part of federal law. That could supersede California law, which is the subject of the referendum.
An unusual - some would say suspicious - chain of events led to this, including a mysterious disappearance of the compacts for a period. The Interior Department's inspector general is investigating, and the governor's role deserves close scrutiny as well - particularly if it ends up thwarting the voters' will. It's hard to believe he didn't know what he was doing.
This is the kind of shady dealing that dogs large-scale gambling wherever it takes place. It's all the more reason to say no to Propositions 94 through 97, and hope it's not too late

OP: Pechanga members currently are making $400,000 a year (Corrected). Good for them. HOWEVER, to get this much, they targeted TWO large families, that represented voting blocs, and terminated their membership, even though the tribe's OWN HIRED EXPERT PROVED that they were Pechanga people. See this LINK In the news report, the Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro is caught in a lie the first 15 seconds of the spot and more lies further in the article. But take a look, who looks more comfortable in presenting it's case; the tribal leader who has spoken before THOUSANDS, or the educator, who has the most experience tracing ancestry and who was PAID to prove that Paulina Hunter was NOT Pechanga, but found that wasn't true, she was? See it for yourself. Macarro is a liar, thus his motives are suspect, AND SINCE PECHANGA will CHEAT it's own people, why should you trust that they won't CHEAT the people of California? Please check out the links.

Where Are the Unions? AFL-CIO, SEIU, Unite Here

It would seem that if the unions are interested in rallying their members to the cause of NO on Props. 94-97 that you would see more activity from them on blogs, message boards and newpapers. Am I missing something? Where are YOU, union members? Can we count of your vote? Does the No endorsements of your leadership mean anything to you?

www.nounfairdeals.com allows comments on their blog. Feel free to comment here.

Vote NO on 94.

Original Pechanga is FOR Expanded Gaming but NO on Props. 94-97

I have stated before that I am FOR expanded gaming. But, as you can tell from this blog, I am AGAINST more slots for the Big 4.

We had a rule at our home growing up: "Nobody gets seconds until everyone has eaten."

There are many tribes in California that have not gotten their first serving of casino funds and therefore, my belief is that the richer tribes should not be able to gorge themselves when some tribes are literally starving.

Read the story at this LINK

By comparison, counting every cent of its federal grants, timber sales and $1.1 million from a state fund that shares casino revenues between rich tribes and poor ones, the Yurok spent $12 million last year. That's less than what one of the richest, the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians near Palm Springs, is spending to appoint rooms in its new resort hotel with granite counter tops, whirlpool baths, plasma-screen TVs and other luxuries.
Widening the economic gap between the tribes, rich ones also spend tens of millions on political contributions in the state capital supporting laws limiting competition and increasing their profits. Sometimes that means big-game tribes work to subvert small tribes' efforts to get into the business.

Say NO to Expanded Gaming until every tribe has been to the table.

Mabuhay Radio says NO to Props. 94-97 NO to Pechanga

Mabuhay Radio, the largest Filipino-American website for online publications in the country urges a NO vote on Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97. PLEASE vote no!

Please Vote “No” on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97


Written by Bobby Reyes
Jan 22, 2008 at 04:57 PM

The http://www.mabuhayradio.com/ urges California voters, especially Filipino-American constituents, to reject the new state gambling compacts with four Southern California Indian tribes.

Proposition 94 is about the new slot machines for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians’ casino in Temecula.
Proposition 95 is for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino in Banning along Interstate 10.
Proposition 96 addresses the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, with its casino in El Cajon in San Diego County.
Proposition 97 involves the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which operates casinos in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage.
The compacts with the four Indian tribes would authorize them to operate 17,000 more slot machines, in addition to the 8,000 “one-arm bandits” that they already have in their casinos. If Propositions 94 to 97 pass, the four tribes would pay the state 15% to 25% of the profits from the additional 17,000 machines. The four Indian tribes claim that they would pay more-than $9-billion to California during the 23-year terms of the compact. This would mean some $391.30-million per year for the 17,000 slot machines. This would translate to $23,017.65 per year per slot machine or $63.06 per machine per day.
There are social costs that casino gambling creates for the state and the respective counties where the four Indian tribes operate. The state share of $63.06 per slot machine per day may not even be enough to offset the increased costs of providing services to fight compulsive-gambling addiction that in turn brings about violence, separated families, foster-home services for the minor children of divorcing families, etceteras, etc., and what not. The claim that the additional revenue from the compacts would help California with its budgetary deficits is just as vain as the gambler’s hope of hitting the jackpot in the proposed new slot machines.
The opponents say that the revenue to the state from the four compacts is overestimated. There is also the argument that the compacts do not ensure that California would get its fair share, as the percentage is based on projected profits from the operation of the slot machines.
Even labor unions are against the propositions. In short, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 bring more disadvantages than benefits to the State of California and her people, including American Native Indians. Voters should and must reject them.

Please read the entire editorial at: Mabuhay Radio

More Reasons to vote NO on the Props 94-97

Here's what happens should Californians pass the expanded gaming Propositions:

Decreases in Other State and Local Revenues.

The compact amendment would result in reductions of other revenues received by the state and local governments:

Effects on Taxable Economic Activity.
As tribal gambling expands, Californians would spend more of their income at tribal facilities, which are exempt from most types of state and local taxes. This means Californians would spend less at other businesses that are subject to state and local taxes—for example, hotel, restaurant, and entertainment businesses off of tribal lands. This would result in reduced tax revenues for the state and local governments.

Reduced Gambling-Related Revenues.
The state and local governments currently receive revenues from other forms of gambling—such as the California Lottery, horse racing, and card rooms. Expanded gambling on tribal lands could reduce these other sources of state and local revenues. In addition, as the Pechanga tribe expands its casino operations, it may attract customers who otherwise would go to the casinos of other California tribes. If this occurs, these other tribes would receive fewer revenues from their casinos and could pay less to the state under the terms of their compacts.

Less Money in the SDF.
If voters approve this proposition, the Pechanga tribe would stop making payments to the SDF. (Other propositions on this ballot also would reduce payments to the SDF.) Under current law, the first priority use of money in the SDF is to cover shortfalls in the RSTF so that tribes with no casino or a small casino receive a $1.1 million annual payment. If there is still not enough money to cover RSTF shortfalls, the compact amendment requires the state to use a part of the Pechanga tribe’s payment to the General Fund to make up the difference. In addition, other programs (such as grants to local governments) funded by the SDF might need to be reduced and/or paid for from the General Fund.
While these revenue decreases are difficult to estimate, the combined impact would be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

And that is IF the tribes put all 7,000 machines in. What is the incentive to do so, if they are going to be taxed at 25% of those machines. They won't be able to fill the casino now. Wouldn't it make better sense to increase the tax to 25% of the NEXT 3,000 and then 15% of the last 2,000? Otherwise, it's a net of about $13 million to the state, at best. We need a better deal.