Tribes ‘Oversold’ on Sports Betting, Suggests Pechanga Chairman
Posted on: October 7, 2017, 05:00h.
Last updated on: October 7, 2017, 07:55h.
The economic benefits of legal and regulated sports betting may have been oversold to tribal operators, according to the leader of California’s Pechanga tribe.
Speaking at G2E this week, Mark Marcarro, chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, said projected revenues may have been exaggerated, or are at least difficult to quantify, and has called for more research to be undertaken so that tribal operators can better understand the potential benefits.
California lawmaker Adam Gray has introduced legislation that would authorize sports betting the state, should the Supreme Court advocate a change in federal law when it reviews New Jersey’s case later this year.
Online Poker Squabble
The Pechangas have been accused of being “obstructionist” over California’s attempt to regulate online poker, due to their insistence that PokerStars, with whom several California tribes have a commercial agreement, should be frozen out of a future market due to its previous “bad actor” status.
Marcarro said that his experience of being involved in the failed process to regulate online poker in California has caused him to be cautious about sports betting, although he does believe it will be a net benefit to the tribal casinos as a whole.
“There were wild estimates out there about the world of liquidity of these things, and by last year [online poker estimates] were down by 75 percent,” he said.
The Pechanga chairman added that he would not be surprised if projected figures for sports betting were to take a similarly wild dive at some point in the near future. While operators report their sports books drive customers to onto the casino floor, the evidence remains “anecdotal” and needed to be backed up by cold, hard facts, he said.
Sports Betting Needs Tribal Support
“We’re all looking at the same limited amount of data, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot there,” he said, adding that the $150 billion figure is based on data gathered 20 years ago. “We need some new studies, we need some analytics, we need something quantifiable.”
While the National Indian Gaming Association recently lent its support to the American Sports Betting Coalition, an advocacy group organized by the American Gaming Association devoted to fighting for legal sports betting, many tribes remain circumspect.
The support of the tribes is vital for effective sports betting regulation in the future, but tribal operators are notoriously wary of any kind of gambling expansion that also involves commercial operators and may require renegotiations of their own state compacts.
Related News Articles
NCAA Lays Down Its ‘Model’ Sports Betting Legislation in Indiana
Philip Conneller
— October 25, 2018
Most Popular
Most Commented
Most Read
LOST VEGAS: First Documented ‘Trick Roll’ by a Prostitute
Corey Levitan
— September 9, 2024
Last Comments ( 4 )
So what was the point of the Dawes Act and othe similar documents that have selectively chosen applicants to many tribes only to be denied by the tribes due to not being listed on the "roles" yet brushing off DNA test proving high quanties of Native blood quantim? I guess the Russians were in colusion then too hu?
BAM!! Truth from Van Norman/Treaty scholar-expert!! Can't deny history or the law, no matter how much you might disagree.
Indian nations were independent sovereign nations prior to the formation of the United States. As President Ronald Reagan recognized in his 1983 Statement on American Indian Policy, "When European colonial powers began to explore and colonize this land, they entered into treaties with sovereign Indian nations. Our new nation continued to make treaties and to deal with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis. Throughout our history, despite periods of conflict and shifting national policies in Indian affairs, the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes has endured. The Constitution, treaties, laws, and court decisions have consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian tribes and the United States which this Administration pledges to uphold." January 24, 1983. President Clinton issued Executive Order 13175 on November 6, 2000, which states: "Our Nation, under the law of the United States, in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. The United States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self- government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination." The United States Constitution recognizes Indian nations as prior sovereigns in the Treaty and Supremacy Clauses, which read together acknowledge Indian nations through affirmation and incorporation by reference of treaties made under the Articles of Confederation prior to 1789, nine of those sixteen treaties were Indian treaties. The Indian Commerce Clause recognizes Indian tribes as governments, and the Apportionment Clause recognizes citizens of Indian nations as "Indians not taxed." The 14th Amendment to the Constitution affirms the United States original policy towards Indian nations through the renewed reference to "Indians not taxed" in the amended Apportionment Clause and the exclusion of tribal citizens, subject primarily to tribal jurisdiction not the "jurisdiction" of the United States in the Citizenship Clause. Numerous treaties offered American Indians citizenship, while providing that American Indians would retain their original treaty rights, which include self-government and self-determination on American Indian homelands. Many of these treaties, like the 1868 Sioux Nation Treaty, have been repeatedly recognized in subsequent legislation. See e.g. Public Law 113-168 (2014); Public Law 83-776 (1954); Act of March 2, 1889. The 1924 Citizenship Act expressly preserves the relationship of American Indians to their Indian tribes by maintain the connection to tribal land. The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that American Indians retain their treaty rights after the passage of the 1924 Citizenship Act. See McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, (1974) (Upholding Navajo Nation 1868 Treaty rights). From the very beginning of the America's history, the United States recognized Indian homelands as the original lands of the Indian nations. In the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, the United States pledged that the utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians. In their liberty and property, they shall never be disturbed...." President George Washington, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention of 1787--1789, secured affirmation of this early law in the 1st Congress in August, 1789. Territorial organic acts for later territories, including Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. reference this early law. Later territorial organic acts and state enabling acts frequently acknowledge Indian treaty rights, Indian lands, Indian liberty, and disclaim any state authority to interfere therewith. So, there is a very long history, pre-dating the United States, which recognizes Indian lands as the homelands of Native Nations under American Indian and Alaska Native self-government. In other words, Native self-governance is far older than the American Republic and expressly recognized by several provisions of the Constitution.
This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made null all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law. And yet, politicians and MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post citizenship. There is nothing in U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS that speaks to the Constitution’s mandate that common law must be for “We, The People, By The People and For The People’s” health, welfare, safety and benefits for a specific geographic area of a State or the Union. The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for: 1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al 2. Treaties with its own constituency 3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as ‘occupancy and use’ by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States. 4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation-state’ from which citizenship is derived. A simple question for politicians and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard: “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”