McClintock received legal campaign contributions from the tribes. Did he change his longstanding position after receiving those contributions? NO! He has been consistent all along.
Arnold received legal contributions from various sources, including Las Vegas interests, and now opposes both Tribal Gaming issues. Is he in their back pocket? Being a self-described "Milton Friedman" advocate, it is hard to understand why Arnold would oppose the tribes right to conduct business on their sovereign lands.
That said, perhaps discussing the initiatives and their relative merits would be more productive, eh?
I don't see how you could say that regarding Arnold, since he opposes the measure pushed by "Las Vegas interests."
The whole reason I asked in the first place was exactly because I wanted further discussion of the initiatives and their relative merits. My point is that I'm not going to take McClintock's position on these with blind faith.
Discussion of Tom's motives is already a dead issue to me, I only gave my reason for not taking him at face value as background reference. Now I'd like to explore which is the right decision for California, independent of McClintock.