It is a bitter irony that
Indian nations have become scapegoats for corruption in Washington,
D.C. In response to the Abramoff lobbying scandal, one newspaper in
Montana, the Missoulian, even called for a ban
on any tribal contributions in federal elections.
Some
perspective is needed. In the 2004 election, contributions from
so-called casino tribes to federal campaigns constituted just
one-third of 1 percent of total contributions. Indians constitute 2
percent of the U.S. population, yet tribal political contributions
made in 2004 were disproportionately low compared to population.
Contributions from tribes allowing gambling were also
extremely low if you look at what other interest groups do. In
2004, lawyers and lobbyists contributed 25 times more money to
candidates than tribes; representatives for retired people gave 25
times more; real estate interests gave 13 times more; securities
and investment gave 12 times more; and energy and natural resource
groups contributed seven times more than tribes. Somehow, though,
we don’t hear any calls to ban contributions from these powerful
interest groups whose contributions dwarf those of the tribes.
In any event, Indian tribes are already subject to limits
on political contributions, and the Federal Election Commission’s
limit on tribal contributions is the most stringent that can be
imposed. It is the same individual contribution limit that would
apply to all Americans — $2,100. It used to be $1,000, but
Congress recently raised it. The Navajo Nation, for example, with
255,000 members, can give no more than $2,100 to a federal
candidate in an election. With Senate campaigns costing $10 to $37
million, this is the proverbial drop in the bucket. Tribes are also
subject to the $5,000 per year limit on contributions to political
action committees (PACs), the same limit that applies to all
Americans.
The Federal Election Commission does not place
an aggregate limit on the number of contributions a tribe can make.
In other words, if a tribe wants to make a contribution to five, 10
or 50 federal candidates, it can do so.
Are Indian tribes
the only entities not subject to the aggregate limit? Not by a long
shot. PACs, limited liability companies, limited liability
partnerships, law firms, lobbying firms, cooperatives, community
associations, states and local governments also have no aggregate
limits on their contributions. Again, we don’t hear calls for
banning contributions from these other entities.
Tribal
sovereignty is unique and arises, in part, because when Columbus
set foot in North America the tribal nations had been functioning
governments for thousands of years. In recognition of this and as a
means to control who could negotiate with tribal nations, the U. S.
Constitution contains the Indian Commerce Clause. It declares that
Congress has “plenary power” over Indian affairs — another
way of saying absolute control.
Indian people’s lives
have always been more regulated by Washington, D.C., than other
citizens. Indians were the last people in the United States to be
guaranteed the right to vote; this happened in 1924 — 54
years after the enactment of the 15th Amendment granting the right
to vote to other minorities, and four years after women received
the vote..
For two centuries, the doctrine of federal
plenary power has resulted in devastating consequences to Indian
people. Plenary power was used to confiscate Indian lands
(allotment acts), to prohibit free exercise of native religions,
and to take children from their families and ship them to boarding
schools where their mouths were washed out with soap for speaking
their native language.
But in recent decades, thanks to
successful lobbying efforts by Indian nations, plenary power has
meant passage of more enlightened legislation, such as the Indian
Self-Determination Act allowing tribes to manage federal programs,
the Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
What happens in Washington, D.C., is our
business, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have
every right to make political contributions to federal candidates.
As always, we respect and comply with federal laws that govern
tribal political contributions. At the same time, we support and
urge our entire congressional delegation to enact meaningful
lobbying reform that serves all Americans.
James Steele Jr. is a contributor to Writers on the
Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org).
He is chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and
lives in Arlee, Montana.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
