Wampum

You've probably already heard it, maybe even more than once. The new GOP talking point that somehow, someway, those darn gaming Indians, with the help of "Casino Jack", found a big fat loophole in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and exploited the hell out of it. Now it's the job of good, honest Congresscritters like Sen. McCain to close that illicit loophole, cutting off the "dirty" money used to corrupt politicians, as McCain "informs" us, in both parties. (Of course, he forgets to remind us he took Indian money as well.)

So, just how terrible was this loophole, and how did Congress and the FEC let such a travesty sully our democracy? Here's a February press release from none other than the FEC on the matter:

Federal Election Commission

February 2 , 2006

ATTENTION WIRE SERVICES, DAYBOOK EDITORS:

ADVISORY ON INDIAN TRIBES

There have been recent stories and queries by the media concerning contributions by Indian tribes. Some of these stories have contained important errors in describing the law that regulates the political activity of Indian tribes. The following is offered as guidance.

An Indian tribe is subject to the contribution limitations and prohibitions in the federal campaign finance law. An Indian tribe may contribute up to $2,100 per election to federal candidates, $5,000 per year to PACs, $10,000 per year to the federal account of state parties and $26,700 to national parties. This is true unless the tribe is prohibited from making contributions because it is a corporation or a federal government contractor, in which case, the tribe would be subject to the same prohibitions on contributions as other corporations and federal government contractors. Additionally, political committees, including candidate and party committees, must report contributions from Indian tribes on their regularly filed disclosure reports.

The Federal Election Campaign Act establishes an additional $101,400 biennial contribution limit that applies only to "individuals" (human beings). Thus, individuals face both a per candidate contribution limit of $2,100 per election and an aggregate limit of $101,400 in a two-year period. This biennial limit runs for a two-year period beginning January 1 of the odd-numbered year to December 31 of the next even-numbered year. This limit only applies to "individuals" and not to other entities such as political committees.

These rules have been in place for many years. In Advisory Opinion 1978-51, the FEC concluded that Indian tribes were "persons" covered by the contribution limits. In Advisory Opinion 2000-5, the FEC concluded that the overall biennial contribution limit does not apply to an Indian tribe because the tribe is an organization rather than an individual human being. The FEC's conclusion was necessitated by the Federal Election Campaign Act, which applies the limit only to individuals. Indian tribes are treated in the same way as a number of other types of organizations, such as partnerships or certain limited liability companies, both of which are also not subject to the $101,400 limit imposed on individuals.

Gee, that simple, eh? Tribes, like LLCs and partnerships are not corporations, but they're not obviously not "individuals" either. Unlike corporations, where profits are held for stockholders, not employees, tribes generally hold their gaming money in trust, for the individual members of the tribe to be used for the benefit of all. Thus, there's really no way to fix this, without trampling all over the Constitutional rights of tribal member.

You can't make an entire tribe subject to the limits of an individual - you then dilute their contribution power, which the Court has ruled is "free speech". The tribes are not corporations, as tribal members make up the tribe itself, unlike corporations, where the employees and stockholders have different identities from that of the corporation. If Jane Doe's boss gives her $2000 out of the Corporate treasury to give to Senator X, it's illegal, as the money is not her's. But if tribal member John Dear gets a check from the tribal trust, money which in fact is his, is it any different than taking the money out of his private bank account? If fifty members of the tribe vote to have portions of their trust funds pooled as a single tribal donation, how can Congress put the limits the GOP, under McCain, claim Americans need to protect our democracy (from those bad Injuns, unspoken, but implied.)

Unfortunately, most Americans, brainwashed by generations of "private property" can't comprehend group ownership of just about anything. That's one reason most co-ops fail in this country (while they flourish elsewhere in the world.) The GOP, along with some gaming-adverse Dems, will exploit this ignorance, and McCain will walk away with yet another "reform" feather in his war bonnet. If he gets enough, and he'll probably pick up another under the guise of Trust Fund "reform", he wins in 2008. Hence, this should be important to anyone not partial to a McCain/Lieberman Administration.

All because Congressional Dems will bow to public pressure (whipped up by Fox News and their Greek chorus) and throw gaming tribes to the wolves, the sacrifice which will allow all Congress members and candidates to keep their perks and goodies from the "real" players, not the silly Indians who, for a short while, thought there money was as good as anyone else's.

Note: McCain's hearings on this purported "loophole" were this morning. I'll try and watch a rerun when I can peel the kids away from Noggin or Sprout.

[The image is an actual loophole]