The fact that it's run SOLELY by Indian tribes, that it is largely unregulated, and that the tribes are using the proceeds to buy political influence far outweighing their actual numbers. We're already seeing these problems: Bustamante and McClintock wish to exacerbate those problems through even more deregulation of tribal gaming.
There were two bills that were barely defeated in the Legislature this past session. Keep deferring to the wishes of the gaming interests, and they'll eventually pass.
One would have established a process that would have forbidden development on private lands that the tribes claimed to be sacred. The process would be secret and the actual sacred locations would be kept secret (to "preevent looting"). The adjudication would be done by political appointees--said appointees appointed by politicians on the hook to tribal interests for campaign funds.
You would only learn about the proceedings when the injunction forbidding you from using your land for your profit. Your land would suddenly lose most of its value. About the only people who would be willing to buy the land would be the tribe who had just stolen your property from you, and you'd end up selling at their price, not yours.
Which brings me to the other law that was barely defeated. The other law would have allowed the tribes to buy land anywhere in the state, declare said land to be part of their reservation, and build casinos on said land, without local regulation.
Put these two bills together, and you have a process whereby the tribes can (a) stop development on prime property, (b) force the owners of that now worthless property to sell it to the tribe at a bargain price, and (c) build a casino on that allegedly-sacred land.
If you are a conservative who values property rights, these two bills went beyond "troubling." We get up in arms when a city applies eminent domain to subsidize Costco.
Gambling that is limited to tribal entities is, at its core, the granting a financial boon based solely on the accident of birth.
That's not any sort of republican government. It's feudalism.
Gambling is a legal vice, after all and so are political donations.
Gambling is only legal for a priveleged few, and they're using that privelege to buy political power at the expense of republican values.
If California wishes to legalize gambling, it needs to legalize it for everyone, not just a priveleged few, and regulate it for all under the same rules.
Tom McClintock has stated that the tribes are sovereign nations. He then accepts campaign donations from them.
We got extremely snippy about Clinton accepting foreign donations. But the Tombots sing "Glory, hallelujah!" about it when it's their guy.