Gambling Revenues

If ever there was a time for discussions between American Indian gambling interests and Minnesota officials, it is now. Each year when the Legislature convenes, new proposals for non-Indian gambling are floated, and, for the most part, defeated. But they aren't going to go away. That is why a proposal by the leader of the Mille Lacs band of Ojibwe to hold formal discussions with state leaders about sharing casino profits is welcome. Mille Lacs Chief Executive Melanie Benjamin suggested the talks in a letter to Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislative leaders. Benjamin pointed out she is only speaking for the Mille Lacs band and not others with casinos. The letter - and presumed discussions that will follow - has been described as a move that could alter the gambling debate and Minnesota. And it should. Minnesota can't have a gambling debate without considering the state's largest gambling component - American Indian casinos. For years, dating to the administration of Gov. Arne Carlson, state policy was simple: No expansion of gambling beyond what existed at that time (mid-1990s). More recently, though, with pressure from private non-Indian developers ranging from Las Vegas interests in developing a casino at the Mall of America to allowing slot machines at the horse racing and poker operation at Canterbury Downs, state leaders have been more receptive to talk of turning to gambling to raise revenues. In the past tribes have not been receptive to talk of formal revenue-sharing with the state, nor is that covered in any of the compacts they have allowing their diverse gambling operations, including several in northern Minnesota. Now Benjamin is playing that card on behalf of her band by suggesting casino support for a variety of uses, including the possibility of contributing to the construction of sports stadiums for the Minnesota Twins and Vikings. And her reception at the Capitol is likely to be warm, as well it should be. Both Pawlenty and Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, welcome the discussions with Benjamin, although Pawlenty noted that her suggestions for state use of any Indian gambling revenues differ from his own. He'd rather see revenues go toward education than stadiums, certainly a reasonable goal, although an outside source of money for stadiums, if they must be built, would be desirable. But talk of actual use of any revenues agreed upon is premature. One tribal leader making overtures to state officials for discussions does not constitute a major development, with 10 other American Indian casino operations not at the table. Sooner or later, though, broader discussions should take place, or the political atmosphere regarding gambling expansion could drastically change. It's hard to imagine that Indian gambling interests would not want to be part of that discussion, beyond their existing lobbying efforts.