Big money spent on casino clash

Southern Arizona’s Tohono O’odham Nation has been trying to build a casino on the site since 2009. The Gila River Indian Community — which operates the closest competing casino to the Glendale site and is trying hard to block it — paid lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $980,000 through March, according to records compiled by OpenSecrets.org, a project of the nonprofit research group Center for Responsive Politics.

About $510,000 of that money went to push federal legislation that would prohibit the Tohono O’odham from operating a casino in the Phoenix area, said Don Pongrace, attorney for the Gila River Indian Community. He heads up Akin Gump’s American Indian law and policy group.

For the past two years, Gila River’s total spending on lobbying exceeded all other spenders in the gaming industry, including the American Gaming Association, OpenSecrets shows.

Last year, the Gila River tribe spent $3.7 million on lobbying. In 2013, it spent $2.8 million, up from $770,000 in 2008, before the controversy began.

The Tohono O’odham Nation has boosted its lobbying outlay in response to the infusion of money from the Gila River and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris said in an interview.

The Tohono O’odham spent $410,000 on lobbying in the first quarter of 2015. The prior year, the Nation spent $1.6 million on lobbying and $1.4 million in 2013, according to OpenSecrets. That’s up from $230,000 in 2008.

Coming up with that much money hasn’t been easy, Norris said.

“We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied around just because they have the deep pockets to spend on this issue,” he said.

Pongrace says the proportion of spending devoted to the Glendale casino issue has remained stable.

“The increase over time has actually been driven by the other issue sets,” Pongrace said. That includes a water settlement implementation, health care legislation and issues related to a U.S. Department of the Interior “land buy-back” program.

The proposed legislation would prohibit gaming on the Glendale site until 2027, when the state’s gaming compacts would be up for renegotiation. It is expected to be heard by the full U.S. House and the Senate chambers later this month.

The controversy has caused tension between Arizona’s tribes since the Tohono O’odham announced their plans for the casino. A 1986 law gave the Nation $30 million to compensate for flooding tribal lands near Gila Bend as part of a federal dam project. The law also allowed the tribe to obtain property anywhere in Maricopa, Pinal or Pima counties and have it become part of the reservation. The Nation bought land at the edge of Glendale in 2003, using a third party to make to purchase, and announced its plans for a $400 million casino there six years later.

But opponents say voters were misled in 2002 when considering Proposition 202, a ballot measure giving tribes exclusive rights to operate casinos in exchange for revenue-sharing with the state. The measure contained a loophole allowing gambling on lands added to reservations under scenarios like the Tohono O’odham’s Glendale purchase, the Star reported.

Opponents say the Tohono O’odham led voters to believe there would be no new casinos in the Phoenix area, while they simultaneously planned the Glendale casino.

Courts have repeatedly sided with the Tohono O’odham Nation, whom Gila River Indian Community leaders have accused of fraud.

A federal district court judge ruled in 2013 that even if the Tohono O’odham suggested there would be no new casinos in Phoenix, nothing in the state’s gaming compact actually prohibited them from building one.

Pongrace says the tribe and the state are appealing that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court. The judge should be able to consider the conditions surrounding the development of the contract, not just the technical meaning of the words in the contract, he said.

He says the tribe shouldn’t be allowed to “fraudulently induce someone to enter into a contract, knowing you intend it to mean something different afterwards.”

Accusations of fraud are offensive, Norris said.

“I’m offended at the fact that our sister tribe’s leadership has chosen to accuse us of fraud and accuse us of greed,” he said. “If that was the case, why didn’t the court decisions come out differently? Why didn’t those administrative decisions come out differently?”

MORE TRACTION

This session’s legislation — HR 308 in the House and S. 152 in the Senate — seems to have more traction than prior bills.

Last week the bill cleared the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs by a voice vote. It now goes to the full Senate. The identical House version has already moved out of committee.

“It looks like what they’ve been able to accomplish is buying the legislation that the Senate committee passed,” Norris said.

A Congressional Budget Office report issued April 24 said litigation that could result from the anti-casino legislation could cost taxpayers anywhere from zero to $1 billion. The Tohono O’odham could claim losses from lost casino revenues of $100 million per year until 2027, but there’s no guarantee they’d succeed in court, the report said.

Litigation is likely if the legislation passes, Norris said.

“We’re going to continue to move forward,” he said. “If we have to sue the governor, if we have to sue the state gaming director, if we have to sue the state Attorney General, then we’re going to do it. We have to protect our interests and our rights in being able to move forward.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., an opponent of the legislation and a supporter of the Tohono O’odham’s right to build the Glendale casino, says $1 billion is a huge risk to put on taxpayers.

“I am convinced there’s going to be a liability and it won’t be zero. It will be significant,” he said. “I don’t know why they want to take this risk. In Maricopa, the size of it, there is enough gaming money to go around.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who introduced HR 308, would not comment on the bill.

Congress should not retroactively undermine a contract between the government and a Native American tribe, whatever the motive, Grijalva said.

“It could be water, it could be territory,” he said. “That is a very, very dangerous precedent.”