Battle Lines Blurred on Gaming Initiative

Voters confused by the rhetoric over Tuesday’s Indian gaming initiative--and thinking they can look to each side’s endorsements to help sort things out--might end up only more perplexed.

For instance, the California Chamber of Commerce is opposed to Proposition 5, although various local chambers of commerce near casinos have heartily endorsed it.

The same is true in law enforcement; both sides on Proposition 5 can point to endorsements from various police organizations, local and statewide.

The district attorney for San Francisco supports 5, while his counterpart in San Diego opposes it. (Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has remained silent on the ballot measure.)

Even the Lincoln Club, a conservative Republican fund-raising group with a dozen chapters statewide, can’t agree.

The Lincoln Club of Orange County opposes Proposition 5; the Lincoln Club of the Coachella Valley, with former President Gerald Ford as honorary chairman, supports it--even though the club includes on its advisory board Gov. Pete Wilson, who vehemently opposes Proposition 5.

Dale Dykema, president of the Orange County group, said the split among conservative Republicans shows “this is a very confusing proposition.”

“Our position,” he said, “is that Proposition 5 gives the Indians more rights than other American citizens. That was the most convincing argument.”

Tom Freeman, president of the Palm Desert-based Lincoln Club, said his chapter embraced the initiative because tribes that have casinos--including several near him--”have done a tremendous job at moving people off public assistance and into the work force” and because “we respect Indians’ rights, that they are entitled to the same piece of the pie that every American is.”

Gina Stassi, a spokeswoman for the No-on-5 campaign, said she gives more credibility to endorsements by statewide organizations because of their larger perspective. So she boasts of the California Chamber of Commerce’s opposition to Proposition 5. The state business group claims that the measure is “extremely unfair to non-Indian businesses because it exempts tribal casinos from taxation and all state and local regulations,” said state chamber spokeswoman Ann Amioka.

Yes-on-5 spokesman Steve Glazer argues that endorsements from local organizations are more important “because they know firsthand the positive impacts that have come from Indian casinos.” So he welcomed the endorsement of such chambers of commerce as the one in Temecula, which supports the initiative because of the economic impact--including employment opportunities--that a nearby Indian casino has had in the community, said spokeswoman Kelly Daniels.

The endorsement battle has spread somewhat into the ranks of organized labor, too. The California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, claiming to represent the interests of the state’s 2,000 labor unions, opposes Proposition 5 because, it says, the measure offers no worker protections. But several individual unions have endorsed Proposition 5, including the Communication Workers of America--which has signed an agreement with a San Diego County Indian tribe to represent casino workers.

Dick Rosengarten, publisher of California Political Week, said voters who look to endorsements to help decide how to vote may not discern much by comparing the endorsements on both sides of Proposition 5.

“Even the state’s newspapers are split in their editorial support or opposition to it,” he said. “I have never seen . . . an election where the entire political thought process has been so divided.”

Buck Jones, a director of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, sympathized with a confused electorate.

“Normally, voters can pick out [endorsements] they identify with, and go that way on the issue,” Jones said. “But . . . on Proposition 5, the electorate will be confused. It’s a conundrum.”