[John Jorsett]

My sentiments are with McClintock, but this is off the mark. Schwarzenegger is making a legitimate point that Indian gambling has become too powerful in state politics. Their campaign cash is buying them far too much influence, and I'm disappointed that McClintock took it. I'd much rather that he had pledged to rein them in than accept their money.

[vbmoneyspender]

My sentiments are with McClintock, but this is off the mark. Schwarzenegger is making a legitimate point that Indian gambling has become too powerful in state politics.

So are you suggesting that we tax them in order to reduce their influence? How much should they be taxed in order for their influence to be reduced to the point that you feel comfortable with them. And once you have started down that road, do you think talk radio hosts should be taxed because they have become very influential. Likewise, should rich people have their taxes increased because they can do the same thing as the Indian tribes, which is pay for independent advertising?

[Sabertooth]

My sentiments are with McClintock, but this is off the mark. Schwarzenegger is making a legitimate point that Indian gambling has become too powerful in state politics. Their campaign cash is buying them far too much influence, and I'm disappointed that McClintock took it. I'd much rather that he had pledged to rein them in than accept their money.

What's that comment that Rush used to make...?

"If you want to get the money out of politics, get the politicians out of our money."

So long as politicians look at every dollar in the private sector as a piggy bank waiting to be broken, folks are going to want to influence elections in self defense. So it goes with the Indian casinos.

Schwarzenegger has taken in a lot of money from developers, and has a plan to sell off California's landed assets. Is that not a conflict?

I'm actually in favor of getting land out of government hands, but I'd like an open debate about how to best go about it. Should it all go to developers? Should California citizens with some minimum residence requirement get a crack at purchasing designated parcels?

I'm rambling. I'm just suspicious of the premise that the influence of Indian casinos, since their operations are legal, is any different ethically than any other interest group.