Opinion: Transparency needed in Indian gaming

Monday, January 30, 2006  

"Abramoff's clients might not have been so vulnerable to being ripped off if they had been less fond of secrecy. Tribes that operate openly and are accountable to tribal members might have faced skeptical questioning about their huge payments to Abramoff's firm. Questions such as: What are the lobbyists doing with our money? Why pay so much more than the fees paid by other lobbying clients? Why lobby at all in years when Congress isn't considering legislation remotely relevant to tribal interests? What other tribes do our lobbyists work for? Tribes that operate openly might show better judgment than to place an $8 million bet on gubernatorial candidate Bustamante in a race against Schwarzenegger. They might also weigh the risk of political backlash against the benefits expected to flow from politicians on whom the tribes lavish vast sums of money.

Contrary to what tribal leaders believe, sovereignty does not require secrecy. In fact, greater transparency for their casino operations is in the tribes' interest. Transparency would enhance tribes' credibility and the value of their casino holdings. Most important, a policy of openness would empower tribal members, who are too often in the dark about essential tribal business, from casino cash flow to the admission of new members to the tribe. Openness and accountability -- not secrecy -- are the hallmarks of the true sovereign status to which American Indian tribes aspire."

Get the Story:
Peter Scheer: American Indians and the Abramoff Scandal (The San Francisco Chronicle 1/27)