Native American Press/Ojibwe News

Did tribal PACs purchase political disfavor in 2002?

February 21, 2003
We have devoted a great deal of time and space to publishing tribal Political Action Committee (PAC) campaign finance reports.

The information in this edition only includes campaign contributions for candidates running for Minnesota state offices. It does not include campaign contributions for federal or local offices, and we will publish that information as it becomes available.

We feel it is important for tribal membership to know where all our money goes. The amount of Indian PAC money has been rising steadily over the past few years as casino revenues grow, and as political influence becomes increasingly significant in maintaining Indian gambling monopolies and in competing for federal and state funds.

The two largest tribes in Minnesota, Red Lake and White Earth, are not even reflected in the state campaign finance reports, and the third, Leech Lake, has according to the reports filed by the Leech Lake Band, only donated $1,000. This does not mean that these tribes are not spending money to try to buy political influence. Red Lake spent more than $20,000 for a lobbying firm to lobby for a Tribal-State casino last spring, for example, and probably every tribe in Minnesota hires lobbyists.

The largest campaign donations are being made by Shakopee, Prairie Island, Mille Lacs, Lower Sioux, and Fond du Lac. Are the agendas being promoted by those smaller tribes who have financially successful gambling operations in the best interests of the vast majority of Indian people in Minnesota?

Was spending nearly a half a million dollars on a political party which lost the election a worthwhile investment? Who determines how much money will be spent on campaign contributions? And, who decides which candidates and political organizations will get the money?

Political candidates accepting tribal PAC money raises a number of troubling questions.

It generally is illegal for governmental entities to make campaign contributions in Minnesota. It is also illegal for “foreign [or ‘sovereign’] governments” to make campaign contributions. It is not illegal for candidates to accept tribal PAC money, and eighty-five of the candidates in the recent election accepted it. There are some problematic moral issues here. With the tribes’ claims of sovereignty, they are somewhere between a political entity and a sovereign government, with authority far beyond that of any other government in the state.

In addition, most of the tribal governments in the state have pressing social and economic needs, and they are heavily dependent on both the federal and state governments for funds to meet these needs. It seems that that the money that goes into tribal PACs and therefore into political campaigns could be used for far better purposes than paying people for what they should be doing anyway.

Since Indian individuals, like other citizens, can donate campaign finance money, there should not be any need for tribal governments to make campaign contributions.

I think that all political candidates should seriously consider the ethical questions involved in accepting tribal PAC money. Some tribal governments are notorious for their disregard of their members’ (and non-members’) civil rights, and candidates should think carefully about what they’re doing in accepting contributions from these tribal governments’ PACs.

Political representatives whose attention has been ‘bought’ by tribal PAC money could be doing the majority of tribal members a disfavor, supporting a status quo which is genuinely not in the best interests of Indian people or the state of Minnesota.

Over 80% of this year’s tribal PAC contributions went to the political party that lost the election.

It may be that elections like this one, which went the ‘other way’ despite the best efforts of tribal PACs, will compel tribal governments to take another look at their political strategies. At this point, it’s likely that there will be a reaction by the winning candidates against the substantial tribal PAC contributions to those who lost the recent election. Have our tribal governments been buying ‘political disfavor’ on our behalf?

Since 1995, when we started tracking tribal PAC contributions, they have increased steadily. Are tribal governments and Indian people in a better situation now than we were seven years ago? There are serious financial, social, crime, and cultural infrastructure problems on all of the large northern reservations. Over 90% of us not getting any benefit from Indian gambling. I think that except for a few small tribes, we are more dependent on federal and state funding than we were seven years ago.

Exactly what has PAC money bought us?

Editor’s note: According to Press/ON publisher Bill Lawrence, he “couldn’t say it any better” than he did in this editorial, first published on November 8, 2002. “It’s still very apropos to the current issue of tribal PAC money, how it’s managed, and who makes the decisions. We still need to ask, ‘What have tribal PAC funds bought for Indian people – disfavor or influence?’”

Return to home page