The Mashantucket Pequot Nation, a small Indian tribe that owns a huge casino in Connecticut, knows how to make itself heard in Washington.
The tribe gave about $500,000 in national political donations during the 2000 campaigns, more than any other American Indian group.
It could approach that total again in 2004, even if Congress passes pending legislation to crack down on big political donations from special interests and wealthy individuals.
That is because Indian tribes are among the unheralded beneficiaries of potential loopholes in the reform bill, which faces a crucial test soon in the Senate before it can be sent to President Bush.
The bill would ban soft money–unlimited, loosely regulated contributions to national political parties–from all donors, including Indians. But it eases some restrictions on hard money donations–sums that may be given directly to congressional and presidential candidates as well as to their parties.
Part of a small category
Indian tribes, though, are part of a small category of donors that would not have to abide by an overall cap on these hard-money contributions.
As a result, while the typical individual could give the new maximum donation of $2,000 to a relatively few federal candidates, tribes could funnel contributions of this size to as many candidates as they want.
Few expect that any tribe would go that far. But in a new fundraising world, with most soft money off limits, the two major political parties would redouble their chase for hard money. And groups, such as Indian tribes, that can give large chunks of that precious funding source would likely gain influence.
This potential loophole is one of several in the legislation, which advocates acknowledge is more likely to rearrange rather than reduce the flow of money in politics.
Another would let incorporated groups, such as the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club, pour unlimited funds into pre-election political attacks through the news media other than television.
The bill also would encourage state and local parties, acting as proxies for their national counterparts, to solicit from deep-pocket donors.
These provisions underscore the limits of a bill that seeks to overhaul federal campaign law for the first time in nearly 30 years. Political experts are combing through the fine print to find what could be exploited if the measure becomes law.
“We’ll do anything that’s legal,” said Rep. Thomas Davis of Virginia, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We’ll raise hard money. We’ll raise soft money [where possible]. We’ll raise Indian gaming money.”
Bill may head to Bush
This week, advocates of a House-passed campaign finance measure will press the Senate to send it to the White House for Bush’s signature. The reform coalition of Democrats and a small bloc of Republicans appears close to having the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.
Most congressional Republicans oppose the legislation as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. But a major reason Bush may embrace the bill is that it actually expands certain forms of fundraising in which his party excels.
In a compromise to win backing for a soft-money ban, the legislation would allow individuals to give up to $95,000 every two years to political parties and candidates. These hard-money donations, which Republicans historically have raised in far larger amounts than Democrats, may be spent on direct election expenses. Currently, the limit is $50,000.
But the legislation leaves untouched a federal rule that would exempt Indian tribes and certain other donors from the proposed $95,000 limit.
Exemption discovered
In May 2000, the Federal Election Commission found that tribal entities, like unincorporated partnerships and homeowners associations, were subject to some contribution limits but not others.
The exception is potentially important because tribes have gained in wealth and political clout in recent years as the Indian casino industry has grown, and questions about gambling regulations and tribal rights have confronted state legislatures and Congress.
Federal election data show that Indian gaming interests gave $2.9 million in hard and soft money during the 2000 campaign, up from about $128,000 in the 1992 cycle.
Five of the top 10 tribal donors from the last cycle were from California. They gave more than $600,000, mostly in soft money.
More than half the funds the Mashantucket Pequots gave in 1999 and 2000 were soft money donations to parties, predominantly to Democratic groups.
