Indian gaming, anyone?

The California Republican party recommends a yes vote for propositions 94-7. (So is Tom McClintock following the party, or is he making his own independent judgment?) I was going to vote no, because I oppose casinos and the state needs to come up with a better way for generating revenue, and I'm not going to vote one way just because the Republican party says I should--why should I trust the GOP apparatchiks?

While McClintock personally opposes gambling, he gives the libertarian line with regard to government regulation of gambling.

I’ve had a lot of spirited discussions with conservatives over the last few weeks who are adamantly opposed to the Indian gaming compacts for one of two reasons: either they disapprove of gambling or they don’t believe the proponent’s claims that the new revenues will be significant. I agree on both points – but that’s not the issue. And they completely miss the real battle that’s going on – between one of the most corrupt unions in California and the rank and file workers on the reservations....

The big boon comes from the jobs and investment that the compacts make possible – not for government but for the economy. Those who enjoy gambling are doing so anyway and will continue to do so -- in Nevada. Those California dollars are helping to drive Nevada’s hotel industry, its restaurant industry, its gaming industry and all the other businesses that support them. Hasn’t California government done enough already to drive investment, jobs and enterprise out of state?

Finally, there's a dirty little secret that conservatives need to understand clearly: why the compacts are on the ballot at all. Under federal law, every California Indian tribe engaged in gaming has to negotiate a compact with the state to share revenues. These agreements are routinely negotiated with the governor and approved by the legislature without going to voters.

This time however, the hotel and restaurant union, UNITE-HERE, wanted a piece of the action. The union bosses pressed to have a provision inserted in these four compacts that would have denied workers at the Indian casinos the right to a secret ballot in union elections – a despotic arrangement euphemistically called “card-check neutrality.” Instead of casting a secret ballot in the sanctity of a voting booth, workers could be intimidated into casting ballots while surrounded by union organizers.

The legislature balked and approved the compacts without taking away workers’ rights to a secret ballot. In response, the union qualified a referendum to force a statewide vote on these particular agreements (with Las Vegas casinos gleefully joining them). If they succeed in defeating the compacts, it will be a powerful message that all future agreements must include the “card check” provisions that deny Indian casino workers the protection of the secret ballot. Sadly and ironically, many conservatives are unwittingly standing with one of the most corrupt unions in California and against Indian entrepreneurs who finally figured out a way to prosper on the flinty land of their reservations.

So we need the jobs that the casinos would provide to industry and the service sector? Come, now, shouldn't the state work for a sustainable economy? But I'm betting no one in Sacramento has ever given that a thought.