Indian gaming is heading for bad news, if it isn’t already there. Indian tribes defending their share of big gaming markets are paying off states, lobbyists (and the federal Reps and Senators linked to them), and big time lawyers (hopefully someone who went to PLSI, so at least they have some soul), sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars.
It kinda works one of two ways, although they overlap. The first way, the oldest way, is political — Tribe A pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to a lawyer for advice. Big time lawyer says spend hundreds of thousands on campaign contributions to whomever in D.C. is in power, and perhaps the state elected officials, too, if gaming compacts negotiations are needed, to keep Tribe B from getting into Tribe A’s market. Meanwhile, Tribe B is paying another big time lawyer for advice on how to get into Tribe A’s market (of course, they don’t agree it’s Tribe A’s market; to them, it’s Tribe B’s market). Tribe B’s lawyers recommending spending hundreds of thousands more on the same political entities. Tribe A and B pay tons of dough really for nothing, since the political entities are getting a windfall.
Option two isn’t much better (and must less used so far), with the bigger gaming tribe using the gaming compacting process to pay more money to the state to protect a gaming share. The smaller gaming tribes who want into the bigger gaming tribes wheelhouse will naturally agreed to pay even more to the state. State gets more and more.
Option three is litigation, losers all around.
Why not negotiate among tribes first? Who says political entities in the federal government and states are good at gatekeeping or keeping their word? If Tribe A wants Tribe B out, why don’t they approach each other and at least ask what’s it is worth to keep the status quo? Why should politicians and states ever get anything from an Indian tribe?
Yeah, some tribes need gaming compacts. This might not help them, though after Rincon, states can’t just ask for revenue sharing in exchange for a compact.
Intertribal revenue sharing has to be the future, or else all the intertribal conflict will destroy most of the good things about Indian gaming.
Turtle Talk 
Welcome to capitalism
Sounds like a good plan. Now just to tell the tribes.
My favorite is the gaming tribe A that pays money to the vocal Anti-gaming organization to fight tribe B from building a competitive casino! Cut-throat tribal politics at its best/worst!
Matt,
NDNs here in Michigan know all to well about these games. I think in a lot of ways your inter-tribal revenue sharing idea has merit in theory. I also believe that it may be possible in some areas of the U.S.
The ultimate issue of Tribe on Tribe fighting for gaming territory is what I believe we all face in the next decade or two. In some ways I miss the good ole days of Big Money “Drive-in” Bingo on the Rez.
Seems like the answer might depend on the economics, specifically whether Tribe B is taking a piece of Tribe A’s pie (in which case intratribal revenue sharing might work), or whether Tribe B is creating a bigger pie (and thus the revenue lost by foregoing its own casino is much larger than the revenue that Tribe A would actually lose. If the latter is the case, then if Tribe A is sophisticated, it probably would never offer enough to convince Tribe B to stand down unless Tribe B is too unsophisticated to know what it stands to gain.
an X factor is whether or not tribes that have battled one another directly over gaming territory can get over whatever may have happened in the past and have discussions like what you’ve suggested.
Ok people are we not seeing history repeating itself? At one time this was our country. Instead of being a united front and keeping this country for us, we were divided and there was much infighting between tribes and we lost it all. Now we finally are gaining something back and if we get too greedy and battle against each other we will again lose it all. So I am in favor of your option 4.
Inter-Tribal ervenue sharing is NOT the answer, not even close. The only answer that makes “econominc” sense (if that is where you are going with this line of reasoning) is inter-tribal INVESTMENT. $$ spent on positioning Tribe “A” agianst Tribe “B”s interests (lobbyists and political spending) is divide and conquer all tribes LOSE something. With inter-tribal investment, all tribes GAIN something. I’m talking about a “fair deal” where Tribe A bankrolls and/or even manages Tribe B’s Gaming interests to everyone’s success and all Indians eat and sleep in warm dry beds. Anyone who says gaming is a saturated market, his own plans for a casino…