Boycott casinos?

[Faithless]

Interesting Cali issue that pits an Asian American named John Chiang (http://www.chiangforcalifornia.com/) who is running for State Controller and a number of Indian Tribes (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15862479.htm).

Chiang is against the influence Indian Casinos in Cali. So a PAC called Team 2006 has been pouring big PAC money into supporting Chiang's opponent Tony Strickland (as well as Strickland's wife running for another political seat).

Asian-Americans Ramping up Boycott Talks on Tribal Casinos for Anti-Chiang IE (http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=1142&ptid=9)

October 29, 2006 @ 6:05 PM

Steven Maviglio Asian-American legislators are mulling a major effort to urge the state's large Asian-American population to boycott the casinos of the six large Indian tribes that have poured $7 million into "Team 2006," the independent expenditure committee, the California Majority Report has learned.

Northern California Asian-American groups are planning a news conference early this week. While no decision has been made on officially calling a boycott, several legislators are pushing for it to happen.

Last week, Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Judy Chu denounced the tribes after they moved to spend $1 million for the campaign of Republican controller candidate Tony Strickland and against Democratic candidate John Chiang. Chiang is the only Asian-American candidate running statewide.

"I am shocked and appalled by the Casinos' attack on John Chiang," she said. "The Asian American community has always had excellent relationships with the Native American tribes and have been important customers for their casinos. If they want to punish state legislators who did not vote for their bill, that would be one thing. But demonstrating their political muscle by trying to defeat an outstanding candidate is just plain unfair."

[Yeahman]

They want gamblers to boycott casinos and support an anti-casino politician? For some reason I don't see that working out too well.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese boycotting casinos......good luck.

[SunWuKong]

what's his rationale for being against the casinos?

and yes, a lot of Asian people are addicted to gambling. but that's also precisely why a lot of Asian people are especially against gambling - their loved ones are or they have been addicted to gambling before.

my father used to gamble on horses twice a week. now i don't even buy the lottery.

[Faithless]

I don't know if Chiang is against casinos, as much as the influence. Look at how some are trying to buy the outcome of his Controller's race.

[haplesshobo]

I

Chiang is against the influence Indian Casinos in Cali. So a PAC called Team 2006 has been pouring big PAC money into supporting Chiang's opponent Tony Strickland (as well as Strickland's wife running for another political seat).


Geez, a politician takes a stand that hurts the interests of a group so they go ahead and doante money to the opposing politician. Like that's never happened before....

what's his rationale for being against the casinos?

Labor unions donate a lot of money to the Democratic Party, and a lot of unions have issues with casinos. So a lot of candidates will side with the unions to cater to them and get that money. Personally, I think its funny when politicians act so offended that an interest group is donating money to their opponent. Its like how much money have those same politicians received from other interest groups supporting them. Are they going to start returning all the money they've received?

[Faithless]

Geez, a politician takes a stand that hurts the interests of a group so they go ahead and doante money to the opposing politician. Like that's never happened before....
Slimey big money at that.

Labor unions donate a lot of money to the Democratic Party, and a lot of unions have issues with casinos. So a lot of candidates will side with the unions to cater to them and get that money. Personally, I think its funny when politicians act so offended that an interest group is donating money to their opponent. Its like how much money have those same politicians received from other interest groups supporting them. Are they going to start returning all the money they've received?
That's exactly what these Indian casinos are doing, aren't they. They have no real interest in the State of California other than to get themselves rich -- and rich off of some poor suckers.

I invite Californians to check out this interview/debate (http://cbs5.com/video/?id=17085@kpix.dayport.com) between Chiang and Strickland. They don't say anything about the Indian casinos, but there seems to be a great quality difference between the two with Chiang coming out clearly more knowledgable and with more ideas than Tony (all I can say is "political will") Strickland for the State's Controller position.

After watching the video, it made me wonder what the hell Strickland is doing even trying to run for the position. He has no real experience to run that important office. And being a tenured politician in Sacramento doesn't really count.

[haplesshobo]

Slimey big money at that.


That's exactly what these Indian casinos are doing, aren't they. They have no real interest in the State of California other than to get themselves rich -- and rich off of some poor suckers.
.

But, how is Indian casinos donating money to a political candidate any different from Unions donating money to another political candidate? The Unions don't give a damn about the interests of the State or City either. Look at SD and the financial mess its in because it backed down to the City's Union and gave them generous benefits. Are you going to accuse the Unions of being slimey big money?

[haplesshobo]

The problem with money and influence in the political system is that its a natural reaction to a system where government has so much power and influence over those industries. You can make a law trying to limit it, but with so much at stake, interest groups will simply find another way to try to voice their opinions in a system that determines how they conduct their business. And, the more control the government has over those industries, the more important it becomes to interest groups that their interests are represented.

One way to curtail interest groups and their money is to limit the power of the government over those industries. With less at stake, those interest groups aren't going to invest the time and money.

[Faithless]

But, how is Indian casinos donating money to a political candidate any different from Unions donating money to another political candidate? The Unions don't give a damn about the interests of the State or City either.
Oh yes they fucking do! Many of California's unions have a vested interested in a wide range of issues that would benefit the worker and the citizens.

Your lousy indian casinos only care about making money for a few.

Look at SD and the financial mess its in because it backed down to the City's Union and gave them generous benefits. Are you going to accuse the Unions of being slimey big money?
No. What is slimey about getting good benefits?

Do you really value yourself so little that you don't think you deserve good benefits?

.
...
One way to curtail interest groups and their money is to limit the power of the government over those industries. With less at stake, those interest groups aren't going to invest the time and money.
Simpler than that -- election reform.

But will that stop the likes of software giant InTuit who has sunk $1M into an "... independent committee called the Alliance for California's Tomorrow" (who supports Strickland) for the purpose of keeing the state from implementing ReadyReturn (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/politicalmuscle/2006/10/tribes_spent_bi.html)?

[haplesshobo]

Oh yes they fucking do! Many of California's unions have a vested interested in a wide range of issues that would benefit the worker and the citizens.

Your lousy indian casinos only care about making money for a few.

I hate to break this to you but unions vested interests are only for union workers, and nobody else. What is so different from the unions from any other interest group? Why is it admirable when unions give out money to support their candidates, but its wrong when another political interest group gives money to another candidate.

And, would you really have an issue with this if the Indian casinos were throwing their money supporting your candidate?



No. What is slimey about getting good benefits?

Do you really value yourself so little that you don't think you deserve good benefits?

You claimed that unions had the best interests of the State at heart even if it trumps their own interests. I'm simply pointing out a well known example that counters that. The unions demanded and received generous benefits from the city of San Diego that almost drove it to the verge of bankruptcy. If those unions really cared about the City, they would have been willing to accept more moderate increases and benefits which wouldn't have financially destablized SD.


Simpler than that -- election reform.


No, look at other past election reforms. Interest groups have found loopholes, and will continue to find loopholes. Moveon. org is an example of a loophole. But, wait. Because it was aimed at candidates you hated, then that was acceptable. :rolleyes:

[Yeahman]

The Unions don't give a damn about the interests of the State or City either.
Oh yes they fucking do!
The 7 million commuters using mass transit in NYC would like to disagree.

[Faithless]

I hate to break this to you but unions vested interests are only for union workers, and nobody else.
Wrong. Have you talked to any big unions in your area?

Put your statement to them in a form of a question and let me know the union and their response. I will then double check with that union based on what you report.

If you can't do that, then I will know that you're only speaking on this issue in a rather ignorant generality. Truly.

And, would you really have an issue with this if the Indian casinos were throwing their money supporting your candidate?
If they were the only ones, I'd be wary. It is quite possible they could support some democratic candidate along with others. But what the fuck can one do but to pay attention to whatever favors that candidate-come-officeholder provides.

[haplesshobo]

Wrong. Have you talked to any big unions in your area?

Put your statement to them in a form of a question and let me know the union and their response. I will then double check with that union based on what you report.

If you can't do that, then I will know that you're only speaking on this issue in a rather ignorant generality. Truly.

I hate to break this to you, but there's no Santa Claus and there's no Easter Bunny. Unions are like any other interest group, and they look after their own members.

Who's the one using ignorant generalities when Yellowman and I have given you several well known documented cases where unions pushed for their own interests at the expense of the general population. We're the ones giving you specific examples! The NY transit strike happened even though the city was offering union workers increases, but it wasn't high enough for the union and so they basically paralyzed the city with their strike.

My friend works at Long Beach Docks, one of the most powerful unions still around. Because of the power of the union, its incredibly inefficient. The rest of the world has modernized where they use computers where its faster and more efficient than using a clerical worker to manually do the same work. But, the unions doesn't allow that. By making those docks inefficient, it only makes it more expensive to use those facilities which gets passed on down to the consumer. How does that benefit the rest of society? Sure, a few union workers get really good wages but those jobs aren't opened up to the rest of the workforce. The union does its best to shut out those jobs to everybody else. Any openings are usually only restricted to a union worker's son or something like that.

[haplesshobo]

So, I guess this is another thread which I'm guilty of not being willing to "discuss issues at YW" because I "cutdown people when they argue with your position" with commonsense and facts. :biggrin:

Anyways, there's four new California propositions about expanding the number of slot machines for four Indian tribes that would basically ratify a deal the Governor and Legislature signed with those tribes last year. Some could argue that the State should never profit from such activities, but then you'd have to basically outlaw fast food, cigarettes, the lottery, and alchol as well.

IMHO, the better argument is the State should have hammered out a better deal where the State got more points but it was handcuffed by the previous deal these tribes originally got for gaming as well as the budget crisis California is facing. But, even this deal is still a better deal than the State originally had with these tribes- now the money is going to the general fund, the tax rate is essentailly doubled, and the overall money going to the State should be 10X than before.

Even as somebody who knows somebody who lost a lot from gambling, I still wouldn't necessairly vote No on these propositions. People are going to gamble anyways, and I'd rather see some of that money kept in California instead of flowing to Nevada.

[Faithless]

Somewhere this thread got sidetracked.

It went from a discussion about Casinos in Cali to a rant about unions.

Can the thread be split into a rant about unions and discussion about Casinos in Cali?

...
Anyways, there's four new California propositions about expanding the number of slot machines for four Indian tribes that would basically ratify a deal the Governor and Legislature signed with those tribes last year. Some could argue that the State should never profit from such activities, but then you'd have to basically outlaw fast food, cigarettes, the lottery, and alchol as well.

IMHO, the better argument is the State should have hammered out a better deal where the State got more points but it was handcuffed by the previous deal these tribes originally got for gaming as well as the budget crisis California is facing. But, even this deal is still a better deal than the State originally had with these tribes- now the money is going to the general fund, the tax rate is essentailly doubled, and the overall money going to the State should be 10X than before.

Even as somebody who knows somebody who lost a lot from gambling, I still wouldn't necessairly vote No on these propositions. People are going to gamble anyways, and I'd rather see some of that money kept in California instead of flowing to Nevada.
I'll be voting no for the reasons sighted here (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/california_prop.html).

[SunWuKong]

Somewhere this thread got sidetracked.

It went from a discussion about Casinos in Cali to a rant about unions.

Can the thread be split into a rant about unions and discussion about Casinos in Cali?

i scanned through the thread and have no idea where to split the thread. i can't tell if there's a clear line of demarcation between a discussion of Indian casinos and a discussion of unions. how about we try to stay on topic instead, and start a new thread on unions if there's still interest in talking about unions?

[haplesshobo]

It went from a discussion about Casinos in Cali to a rant about unions.

Wait a minute. So, when you label casinos as "slimey big money"[sic] and accuse them of "trying to buy" elections, then that is a "discussion". But, when somebody else makes the point that unions are like any other interest group, with their own vested interests, then that becomes a "rant"?

Um, okay....

I don't necessairly have a problem with union, esp. if their leadership is representing the position of the rank and file, participation in the political process. But, at the same time, I think its kind of naive to believe that unions are somehow different from any other interest group.

If you want to call that a "rant"...

Somewhere this thread got sidetracked.

Can the thread be split into a rant about unions and discussion about Casinos in Cali?

Well, IMHO, the union discussion is relevant because the casinos were criticized for their participation in the political process and I don't see how that's different from any interest group such as a union getting involved. If you're really against interest groups supporting a candidate, then shouldn't you be against all interest groups, including unions?

But, then you tried to defend that position by stating that indian casinos were only looking for themselves while unions were concerned about the general welfare of the state. As such, it was necessary to point out several examples as to where a union was just like any other interest group and looked out for its own interests. To try to eliminate the union discussion in this thread would be to eliminate any discourse on this topic about indian casinos and whether or not they should be allowed, like any other group, to particpate in the political process.



I'll be voting no for the reasons sighted here (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/california_prop.html).

I'm kind of confused about why you cited that link.

In another thread, about taxes on cigarettes, with the comment "by putting a tax on smokers backs", it seemed you were implying taxes on cigarettes were too high. Yet, if you really are voting no for the reasons cited in that essay, then how can you be against higher taxes on cigarettes since that's the antithesis of the whole point of that essay?

The writer makes the same point I did about CA getting more points from any deal, but calls it a minor 'quibble'. Instead, the writer writes that the 'deeper reason' is that gambling, which he lumps together with cigarettes, has 'no societal merit.'

Just skimming the rest of that website, and it seems to be arguing that instead of trying to help pay for the budget defecit with increased revenue from indian casinos, that California should pay for it by repealing Proposition 13. If that's what you really want....

[haplesshobo]

I'll be voting no for the reasons sighted here (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01/california_prop.html).

The LATimes editorial board has come out and said yes to those four propositions, and it points out that opponents have overplayed their hands with some of their arguments, as that link tried to argue.


Despite a convoluted history, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 are actually quite simple. They would uphold agreements to amend existing compacts between California and four Indian tribes that already permit gambling on their reservations. These addenda were negotiated by the state, vetted and adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor, but a petition drive funded by organized labor, racetrack owners and several other tribes forced the four agreements onto the ballot.

There is no reason for the state to back out. Vote yes on Proposition 94, 95, 96 and 97.

The measures are practically identical, the only differences being the tribes covered by each: the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

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

Voters would be foolish to believe that gambling will rescue the state from its perpetual fiscal crises. But it does bring in revenue while also bringing much-needed wealth to impoverished indigenous Californians.

[Faithless]

i scanned through the thread and have no idea where to split the thread. i can't tell if there's a clear line of demarcation between a discussion of Indian casinos and a discussion of unions. how about we try to stay on topic instead, and start a new thread on unions if there's still interest in talking about unions?
I see the Long Beach docks issue as a separate issue all together. Okay, I'll start a thread at some point.

Anyway, here's an editorial position from the Sacramento Bee in opposition to props 94-97 (http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/story/631579.html).

In part it says:

...
Finally, the ambiguous language of the compacts is troublesome. Payments to the state are based in part on "the average number of gaming devices operated" during a quarter. Opponents say that by roping off machines during slow periods and thus reducing the average number of slots "operated," the tribes can substantially reduce any payout to the state. Compact supporters claim no such manipulation is intended or allowed. Maybe not, but the ambiguity gives voters another reason to vote No on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

The SF Chronicle votes no (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/13/EDO7UD1RV.DTL).

Co Co Times votes no (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_7968191).

[haplesshobo]

I see the Long Beach docks issue as a separate issue all together.

IMHO, the union discussion is relevant cause who's spearheading the fight against these proposition? Organized labor, Vegas casino, and CA racetracks which are fighting to get their own slot machines.


Co Co Times votes no (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_7968191).

First of all, I don't think that's an editorial.

And, I've read those arguments, and they mostly boil down to a moral argument that gambling has no social merit. But, then that's also true of alcohol and smoking as well. Should we start banning those as well?

Here's an article about Obama's and Clinton's position on gambling, and how that might factor in these primaries. And, I think Clinton makes a pretty astute point- "Any human activity has social costs, really". There's a number of people in over their heads from shopping too much, but that doesn't mean we should ban credit cards.

By Peter Wallsten and Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 18, 2008
LAS VEGAS -- Barack Obama has warned about the dangers of gambling -- that it carries a "moral and social cost" that could "devastate" poor communities. As a state senator in Illinois, he at times opposed plans to expand gambling, worrying that it could be especially harmful to low-income people.

Today, those views are posing a problem for Obama in the gambling mecca of Nevada, which holds its presidential nominating caucuses Saturday. While his top rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also talks often about aiding low-income Americans, she has embraced the gambling industry and its executives, and her campaign has used Obama's past statements in an effort to turn casino workers and other Nevada voters against him.

The split on gambling between the Democratic rivals is a little-noticed but meaningful development that could affect the caucus vote Saturday and the broader election, as Obama and Clinton try to raise money and win votes in what is likely to be a drawn-out fight for the presidential nomination.

The differences could also help shape the outcome of the primary election in California, where the Feb. 5 ballot will carry four high-profile initiatives that could either rescind or allow an expansion of slot machines at Indian casinos. Californians who turn out to vote on those initiatives may also be motivated by a candidate's position on gambling when they cast ballots in the presidential contest.

"There's a fundamental question here," said the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. "Until this point, Obama's statements seemed to suggest that he did not buy into the industry arguments that this is a product like golf or Starbucks that should just go on Main Street. And Hillary, by attacking him, seems to have come down clearly on the side of the industry that this is economic development."

Although critical of Clinton's stance, Grey and others who want to limit the gambling industry are now watching Obama with a wary eye. Obama is courting union workers at casinos and has calibrated his criticisms to declare Nevada a "model" for properly regulated casino gambling.

The issue has come into focus primarily due to the Clinton campaign, which has distributed a document to local reporters, headlined, "Obama Blasted Gambling as Socially Destructive and Economically Irresponsible," listing several of his past quotes.

Among them are a 2003 comment in the Chicago Defender, a black newspaper, in which Obama argued that the "moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating."

In 2001, the Clinton memo states, Obama described himself as "generally skeptical" of gambling as an economic development tool and likened the expansion of slot machines to the state lottery, in which, he said, "you'll have a whole bunch of people who can't afford gambling their money away, yet they're going to do it."

As part of its efforts to publicize those statements, the Clinton campaign has secured the help of top industry players -- several of whom participated in a campaign-sponsored conference call with the media last week designed to chastise Obama.

Former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones, now a senior executive at Harrah's Entertainment, and Philip Satre, a former Harrah's executive and top industry spokesman, argued on the conference callthat gambling had brought jobs and much-needed tax revenue to many communities, including economically challenged places in Obama's home state, such as Joliet, Ill., home to a casino.

They disputed the argument that gambling causes social problems and that those problems disproportionately affect lower-income people.

"People are not gambling away their mortgages," Jones said in an interview later, adding that she planned to raise campaign money for Clinton.

"We saw the caucus as an opportunity to really showcase how important this industry is to providing capital investment and jobs that give Nevada residents the opportunity to live the American dream," she said.

Former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, an official in Clinton's campaign and a board member of International Game Technology and Wynn Resorts, said Obama's stance was reason for Nevada voters to choose Clinton.

Obama, said Miller, has been "critical not just of gaming in Illinois, but gaming as an industry. Sen. Clinton, to the contrary, has always been supportive and understanding of our industry." He said he was not speaking for Wynn Resorts or International Game when talking about the presidential contest.

Satre, former chairman and chief executive of Harrah's Entertainment, said he too would help raise money for Clinton. Obama, he said in an interview, "doesn't think gambling should expand. He thinks gambling has a moral and social corruption attached to it."

Satre and Jones are part of a group of Clinton supporters called the Nevada Business Leadership Council. Satre said the group's purpose is to act as a sounding board for the candidate on Nevada's business climate.

Clinton aides said the New York senator had long supported communities' efforts to lure new casinos to economically struggling places outside New York City, such as upstate New York and the Catskills.

One proposed casino, to be built in the Catskills by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, was rejected by the federal government earlier this month. That casino would be operated in partnership with Nevada-based Empire Resorts, which lists Clinton on its website as a key supporter. The tribe is appealing the federal rejection, and the decision could be left to the next administration.

n a brief interview Thursday with The Times, Clinton described the gambling industry as an "economic development tool" and said that "for many places in the country, it seems to be an important part of what they are trying to do to revive and maintain an economic base."

Clinton likened the potential social costs of gambling to the costs of other industries that pollute or leave toxic dumps, saying that the impact "depends on how well-regulated it is."

"Any human activity has social costs, really," she said, adding later: "Life is filled with trade-offs, and you have to do the best you can to balance the pluses and the minuses."

Grey, who heads the coalition against legalized gambling and is also a Methodist minister, said Clinton's position conflicted with the church's Social Principles, its statement of values, which Clinton has cited as a personal moral guide.

He pointed to a quote published last month in the Christian Science Monitor in which Clinton said: "For me, the Social Principles of the Methodist Church have been as much a description of our history as a prod to my future actions."

The Social Principles say: "We call on Christians to abstain from gambling and to be in ministry with persons who are the victims of this societal menace," according to a copy posted on the United Methodist Church website.

Grey said: "It's perplexing to me that she would use the principles and choose to omit the one on gambling." The Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about whether Clinton's stance on gambling conflicted with church policy.

Obama, an avid poker player, developed a reputation in Illinois as a critic of gambling. He voted against a 1999 measure to extend riverboat gambling to include boats stationed at dockside.

But Obama was not dogmatic. In submitting campaign questionnaires in 1998 and 2002 for the anti-gambling group Illinois Churches in Action, he left himself room to back the industry, answering "undecided" on whether he favored adding riverboat and land-based casinos. On a 2002 questionnaire bearing his signature, the words "not sure" were penciled in as answers to questions about several forms of expansion, such as moving casinos from rivers to land and raising the gambling age to 21.

Asked about Obama's stance on gambling, his presidential campaign sent a list of quotations from the candidate in which he distinguished between Illinois and Nevada when talking about the industry.

In the comments cited by the campaign, Obama cast the industry's effect on Nevada in a positive light. For example, he told the Associated Press last month that gambling could be a "successful economic model" as long as it was "properly regulated."