Lawsuit over campaign donations could test tribal sovereignty

AP ^ | Jan ,7, 2003 | ERICA WERNER

[Kay Soze]

In an important test of the reach of tribal sovereignty, California's political watchdog agency is suing one of the state's wealthiest and most influential Indian tribes, alleging violations of campaign finance reporting laws.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which operates two casinos in and near Palm Springs, argues those laws don't apply to it because it's a sovereign entity. The Fair Political Practices Commission says California has a sovereign right of its own to ensure the integrity of its election system.

[Kay Soze]

In the coming years we will be faced with a situation that prallels waht the Israelies are facing in their country.

[pierrem15]

I understand that Indian tribes are "sovereign" in respect to the states-- but that also means they can't vote in state elections, right, since they're citizens of the United States but not of the state around them?

If this is correct, how can they claim a right to participate or influence state politics?

[Kay Soze]

What say yee?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Case law indicates that Indian tribes cannot be sued without Congressional authority. See, e.g.,United States v. U.S. Fidelity Co., 309 U.S. 506, 514 (1940).

[Chad Fairbanks]

In the coming years we will be faced with a situation that prallels waht the Israelies are facing in their country.

So, are you insinuating that in the future, that we indians will become homiced bombers and kill innocent people, in the same manner that the Palestinians do? Because if you are making that comparison, I'm gonna flat out tell you to go F*** yourself... I've had enough of this bigotted s*** from you people.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

In the coming years we will be faced with a situation that prallels waht the Israelies are facing in their country.

I think you owe every single Freeper who is an American Indian a personal apology for that outrageous remark. Start there, and then apologize to their families. Then apologize in general.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think it would be a good thing if you started an informational thread to educate people about Indian issues regarding citizenship, voting, and the reservation system.

Obviously, people are talking out of their asses. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If this is correct, how can they claim a right to participate or influence state politics?

They don't "claim" anything. They have a right, lawfully and legally arranged.

[pierrem15]

That's what I'm confused about: are they citizens of the state in which they reside, or not? I had thought they were not, since I thought they are (in the main) exempt from state laws.

[B Knotts]

Ditto to that. These liberals think they're cute with their attacks on Indians as a means of attacking Tom McClintock, but I'm entirely sick of it.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm beyond sick of it. Being compared to palestinian terrorists goes beyond reason, and I am livid.

TI've said all I'm gonna say on this, because if I post anymore about it, I'll get banned.

[kmiller1k]

Then why, if they are citizens of the state in which they reside, do the tribes have exemption from state laws?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Try this link.

And I'll ask you this: Can you give a campaign donation to someone running for state office who is not a resident of your state?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Please see the link in my post above.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I'm sorry, Chad. : (

[pierrem15]

Thanks for the link: it's an amazing legal history, which is why I was confused. I had known that native Americans had been given federal citizenship by Congress; but I did not know what their legal status as state citizens was.

Regarding your question, I think the ability to give campaign contributions to state candidates is a matter of state law. If California law allows the tribes or tribe members to give, then its obviously legal.

Another issue is the fact that the money is coming from the tribe and not tribe members: it's not clear what the legal status of these contributions would be, even if allowed. Would they be corporate contributions? Or are they wholly unregulated?

It would seem to me that the "sovereignty" issue cuts both ways-- if the state is also sovereign, it can restrict contributions as it sees fit, as long as the restrictions do not violate individuals' constitutional rights.

In the case of a violation, the legal authority of the state would be limited to the recipient, not the tribe.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Excellent and informative post here, which I recommend everyone read. I have encountered people on FreeRepublic in recent days that didn't know American Indians were United States citizens, and suggested that they should not have the right to vote. Unbelievable.

Indians today are United States citizens, but they are also citizens of their tribes. Like other Americans, Indians are subject to federal laws, but they are not always subject to state laws. Indian reservations are held in trust by the federal government for the tribes, so state laws do not always extend to their reservation lands. Thus, the state of Wisconsin, for example, can pass laws regulating hunting and fishing, but these laws do not extend to Indian reservations: tribes are allowed to make their own hunting and fishing laws. When Indians are off their reservations, they are subject to state laws unless they have reserved certain rights in treaties or other agreements with the federal government. For example, an Indian who is caught speeding on a state highway in Wisconsin can be ticketed just like any other person. However, in their treaties with the United States, the Ojibwe of Wisconsin reserved the right to hunt and fish on lands ceded to the United States in the 1800s. Thus, the Ojibwe can spearfish on lakes, under regulations agreed upon between the tribes and the State, in northern Wisconsin despite state laws preventing the general public from doing so.

[bicycle thug]

States and tribes have had bitter running feuds between them. Non-Indians are not welcome on forest lane on the Yakama Indian reservation in Washington State as the state has long begrudged them the fishing and hunting rights granted them in the treaty forming the reservation.

I was there on a forest fire in the 1994 season that was one of those big fire years. I really enjoyed working that fire and loved the Seven Drum Ceremony they had for us.

[BigBobber]

Perhaps us "cute liberals" are concerned that the Indian sovereign nations are making huge contributions almost exclusively to Democrats. In a few short years the Indian tribes have become a powerful political entity very similar to the teacher's unions. They keep the Rats in power, and in exchange the Rats write laws that give the tribes more influence in state matters.

For example, check out the Rat bill on sacred Indian lands that would give them veto and extortion power over YOUR private property. If you think this attack on our rights is "conservative" then I guess I am a liberal.

[kingu]

That's what I'm confused about: are they citizens of the state in which they reside, or not? I had thought they were not, since I thought they are (in the main) exempt from state laws.

See, this is where the confusion comes in. The tribal lands are exempt from state law because they aren't state land. They're federal land, held in trust, for the tribe. Tribal law, for the most part, rules there. The members of the tribe are citizens of the United States as well as of the tribe as well as the state where the reservation (or in California, the Rancheria) resides.

So every tribal member votes in their tribal election, and in the state elections, and in the local elections (county level) and sometimes in the city elections (depending upon the size of the reservation...)

The tribe is exempt, the members are not, is the end result of my point.