Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: Puyallup Tribes now top donor


From: Tim Eyman, ph: 425-493-9127

RE: Anti-892 fundraising hits $5,087,739.70 -- Puyallup Tribes now top
donor at $1,497,835

According to the latest campaign reports posted on the PDC website on
Monday, the tribal casinos have raised $5,087,739.70. On 9/27, the Puyallup
Tribes contributed $747,835 which, when added to their $750,000 donation on
9/22, brings the Puyallup Tribes total to $1,497,835. They're now the No on
892 campaign's #1 donor (the Tulalip Tribes contributed a flat $1 million on
8/05 and are the #2 donor).

All of the opposition's funding is from the tribal casinos. They can
afford it because politicians have given the tribal casinos a
government-protected monopoly which allows them monopoly profits. The
tribal casinos can also afford such huge contributions because they don't
have to pay taxes to federal, state, and local governments.

The tribal casinos have raised a record amount of money. They are
clearly shattering all records on fundraising and it's still darn early.

But voters aren't for sale.

ARE TAXPAYERS WILLING TO PAY AN EXTRA $400 MILLION PER YEAR IN
ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAXES, JUST SO THE TRIBAL CASINOS CAN MAINTAIN A
GOVERNMENT-PROTECTED MONOPOLY? NO WAY.

I-892 is a win-win revenue-neutral tax cutting initiative, providing
$400 million per year in meaningful and long-overdue property tax relief.
The tribal casinos are offering no alternative -- they clearly don't have a
stake in our state's property tax problem because tribal casinos don't pay
property taxes (or any other taxes to federal, state, and local
governments). But taxpayers are struggling and desperately need relief.
I-892 is the only opportunity that taxpayers have this November to lessen
their crushing tax burden and to give our state's sluggish economy a big
boost.

OMG... I hope no one is buying this "stuff."

I am no fan of Casinos but at least the Tribes are in this State and the revenue from their Casinos goes into paying wages and buying services and profits get plowed right back into our local economies.

Who do you think is paying for the YES part of this initiative??? Canadian companies. They currently own more than half of the non-Indian Casinos. They are bankrolling eyeman. And they stand to profit tremendously from passage of the initiative. Its called FOREIGN INVESTMENT... which means profits leave.

If you want most the profits from the HUGE expansion of Casinos that will follow passage of this initiative to go to Canada, then vote yes.

If you want to limit the number of Casinos in the State and keep profits from the number of Casinos that exist now turning around in our local economies then vote NO.

Simple as that.

Couple questions for the board about this initiative:

1) Where does the money go to that the tribes make in the casinos they own? (wages, etc. are understood...but what about the profits?

2) Do the native employees of those casino's pay taxes? (federal, property, etc?)

3) What percentage of the employees of the native casinos are non-native?

I believe in EQUAL rights for ALL people that live in the US, including gays and NA's.

From our own Declaration of Independance:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

If we are all equal, then we should ALL live by the same rules.

Yeah...I'm a dreamer.

Mike

Do you blame the tribes for trying to protect thier buisness or the non tribal casinos for trying to get a chunk of the slot machine pie??? It seems to me that this is a question that is not just money, but also a life style question. Where do you want slot machines, video poker or other gambling? Is it worth the revenue generated to allow gambling state wide? These are questions I will not answer here, just some you need to pose to yourself.

As far as the money generated the state estimates that the slots would generate about 275 million, not 400 million or about a $30 per year per $100,000 assesed value on personal property taxes. I got these numbers from a news report I saw on campaign ads and the numbers they use depending on which side they are on.

Now back to more important stuff. Do you think there will be any new silvers around the shipwreck on monday??? Kids have the day off school and I was thinking of taking the day off?

Mike B - I am not sure I have an answer for all of your questions but I will take a shot...

1. Most Tribes with Casinos are putting their profits back into economic development and Tribal services. This means they hire construction companies to build stores, office complexes, housing, etc. And it means they hire people to expand services (medical and dental, for example) to Tribal members. There are one or two or three Tribes (western WA) that pay a dividend to their members but most are using profits for providing more services.

2. The wages earned by Tribal members as employees at Casinos are taxed the same as non-Tribal employees. It is the treaty fishing income that is not taxed. If Tribal members own property off reservation then they pay property taxes the same as anyone else.

3. I do not know what percentage of the Casino employees are Tribal and what percentage are non-Tribal. I suppose it varies quite a bit from site to site. From what I have seen and understood, at least half of the employees at Tribal Casinos are non-Indian. And depending on the Casino the range might be 300 to 800 total employees. Again, this is an uneducated guess but in the ballpark.

I hope that helps.

A couple quotes from the initiative:

(2)(a) A state excise tax is imposed on the privilege of operating
non-tribal electronic scratch ticket machines. The amount of this tax
shall be thirty-five percent of the net win from the operation of the
electronic scratch ticket machines operated by licensed non-tribal
gambling establishments.

Do the tribes pay a 35% excise tax from the net win off of the machines at the tribal casino's?

(b) Ninety-nine percent of the proceeds of the state excise tax
levied under this subsection, after state lottery commission
administrative expenses for operating the system, shall be deposited in
a new account hereby created called the Equal Treatment Equals Lower
Property Taxes Account in accordance with section 8 of this act. All
tax revenues in the account shall be used to reduce the subsequent
year's state property tax levy as provided in section 3 of this act.

Certainly makes sense to me. Sounds like folks are just trying to level the playing field.

Mike

Not level.... Large Canadian gambling companies are behind this... far bigger than the western WA Tribes. They are paying Eyeman something like 3 grand a week for his efforts.

So, the State gets a slice of the action... some might even call it a pay-off... in order to let the Canadian Companies take the rest of the money and carry it over the border.

What most people don't know is that the EXISTING non-Tribal Casinos are already set up this way. Jobs are here, yes. But the profits are being taken away from here... UNLIKE the Tribal Casinos.

Not level.

The Tribes pay No taxes. In my area the Tribe pays a small amount for fire Dept. only.

Pacificnw,

You've suggested several times that Canadian companies are behind the YES on I-892 campaign and that they (Canadians) are the ones who will really benefit if it passes. Do you have any credible evidence to back up that asssertion?

=================================
As we all know property taxes have gone up considerably in recent years.

If I-892 passes, it will lower the property taxes of every home/property owner in Washington state that normally pays them without costing the state's general fund a dime.

Regardless of a persons personal politics on the national level, as a citizen/property tax payer of Washington voting YES on I-892 is a no-brainer to me, I hope enough people feel the same on November 2nd.
=================================
http://justtreatusthesame.com/Default.htm

Lower Property Taxes

Vote “Yes” on Initiative 892

Ballot Title: Initiative 892 concerns authorizing additional "electronic scratch ticket machines" to reduce property taxes. This measure would authorize licensed non-tribal gambling establishments to operate the same type and number of machines as tribal governments with a portion of tax revenue generated used to reduce state property taxes.

TAXPAYERS PAID $1 BILLION IN PROPERTY TAXES IN 1980 - WE PAID $6.25 BILLION IN 2003

That six-fold increase is obscene and unsustainable. Property taxes will continue skyrocketing unless voters say "enough." I-892 substantially lowers property taxes for citizens without costing government a penny. It's a win-win revenue-neutral tax cutting initiative. Washington is the 7th highest taxed state in the nation (www.taxfoundation.org) - I-892 keeps us from hitting #1.

WORKING CLASS FOLKS, ESPECIALLY STRUGGLING FIXED-INCOME SENIOR CITIZENS, SHOULDN'T BE TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOMES

I-892 imposes a 35% user fee on electronic scratch ticket machines, using these new revenues - $400 million per year - to substantially lower property taxes. Currently, these machines aren't taxed. I-892 allows existing non-tribal establishments to compete with the tribes (who don't pay taxes), levels the playing field, and substantially lowers property taxes without costing government a penny.

THESE STATE-REGULATED, LICENSED, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED TAXPAYING BUSINESSES AND NON-PROFITS SIMPLY WANT TO COMPETE

Opponents' main objection is I-892 "expands gambling." Wrong. I-892 only allows existing non-tribal establishments (NOT grocery stores or 7-Elevens - only gambling licensees with 21 and older customers) to compete with the tribes who already offer these same machines. So I-892 authorizes nothing new - it just gives the fixed number of people who play these machines a different place to go. I-892 doesn't "take away" from the tribes - it only requires them to compete.

"JUST TREAT US THE SAME" I-892 ADVOCATES A PRINCIPLE WE ALL BELIEVE IN: EQUAL TREATMENT

Government shouldn't discriminate or give preferential treatment to citizens based on their group affiliation. I-892 requires equal treatment of non-tribal and tribal establishments. That's fair. I-892 provides permanent funding, which doesn't exist now, for problem gambling. I-892 is a balanced, reasonable proposal which allows competition, levels the playing field, and substantially lowers property taxes ($400 million annually) without costing government a penny. Politicians never reduce taxes. Vote "Yes".

Erma Turner, Beauty Shop Owner, gathered 1781 signatures, Cle Elum Eric Phillips, Hiker, Label Company Owner, gathered 1702 signatures, Everett Andre Garin, Retired Post Office, Grandfather, gathered 1642 signatures, Vancouver Jack ***an, Retired Policeman, Retired Navy, Grandfather, campaign organizer, Spokane Mike ***an, Small Businessman, Community Leader, Father, campaign organizer, Spokane Tim Eyman, $30 Car Tab Guy, Taxpayer Advocate, Yakima / Mukilteo

REBUTTAL

Skyrocketing property taxes are obscene and unsustainable - I-892 provides long-overdue relief. Opponents have no alternative. They're only offering threats, lies, and scare tactics. I-892 substantially lowers property taxes ($400 million annually) without costing government a penny - it's revenue-neutral. Tribes are spending multi-millions from their government-protected monopoly to maintain their unfair advantage. I-892 means equal treatment, competition, and a more level playing field. I-892 provides permanent funding for problem gambling. Politicians never reduce taxes. Vote "Yes".

Just Treat Us The Same I-892, 11840 Renton Ave #110, Seattle, WA 98178 Phone: 425-493-8707, Website: http://www.JustTreatUsTheSame.com, Email: jakatak@comcast.net

The federal government, in keeping with a fine tradition going back 150 years, has now got the Indians addicted to gambling and revenues from gambling.

Way to go Uncle Sam!!!

I dont think that the Eyman initiative is going to provide any kind of reliable income to the state. Gambling income is at best a fluctuating source of revenue. I believe that can be a huge variance in gambling revenues. In 2002 lottery sales plummeted by 42 million dollars and the much vaunted mega millions only brought an additional 15 million into the state instead of the 32 million predicted. I would like to also add my additional .4 in saying that I don't want slot machines on every corner. One of our only hopes in the fight against the Boldt decisions might be the income produced by the casinos that might put the nets out of business because of the revenue from gambling. Here is a link that some might find informative

http://vote.wa.gov/guide/measures_arguments.tpl?key=1004

While I don't want to see slot machines on every corner either I don't think that is what this bill does. Reread the following

Given that statement how could they be on every corner? Just curious. The only way I see it would be to put them in pubs and taverns where people under 21 aren't allowed. I just don't see the problem with that. Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't done enough research on this to know more than what was posted here yet.

Rory - Apparently, when you refer to "credible evidence" you simply mean copies of info off a "YES on I-892" web site with the link to that site.

So, turn-around is fair play. Here are some statements and copies from the NO on I-892" web site followed by a link for those that dare to learn something about this poorly conceived initiative and run by a crook like Eyman.

_________________________________

FUNDED BY OUT OF STATE CORPORATIONS

Tim's "property tax relief" is a guise for the real intent of this initiative. It's industry backed, and industry funded. Tim Eyman is helping to promote it, and put his name on it, and for that, he recieved a $3,100 a week salary. Corporations from Canada and Nevada doled out most of the funds to buy this initiative onto the ballot- Great Canadian Gaming has given $160,000 already. This initiative gives them exactly what they want- what the state Legislature has denied them, for many years, with good reason- legalized slot machines in Washington State.

_________________________________

The companies that stand to benefit from I-892 are its backers- out of state, foreign gambling consortiums with a history of problems.

Great Canadian, I-892’s largest contributor at $72,000, previously invested in a cruise ship venture that soured, and is now involved in a lawsuit against Allegiance Capital of Texas, which partnered in the investment.

The cruise ship itself is now a floating den of prostitutes off the coast of Taiwan.

Besides the failed cruise ship venture, former employees of Great Canadian have stated in sworn depositions that casino managers overlooked loansharking at the company’s British Columbia casinos.

For reporting on the loansharking story, the CBC was faced with a Great Canadian lawsuit alleging libel.

Great Canadian is the meanest bully on the block of the gambling industry. It has aggressively pushed into Washington State, buying up four casinos and dumping thousands into an initiative that allows it to cash out on its investments at the expense of Washington’s communities.

Great Canadian reaffirmed its sinister interest in Washington State when it acquired the other half of partially owned subsidiary Evergreen Entertainment Corp. and raised its stakes by $5.3 million.

It obviously expects I-892 to pass and is hoping to reap the rewards of an initiative that is bad for the state but good for the company

Another large donor is Michaels Associates of Nevada, which was fined $50,000 by the Washington State Gambling Commission for lax oversight that resulted in a $250,000 embezzlement.

And yet another large donor, Washington Gaming, Inc., owned by the Iszley brothers, is currently more than $900,000 delinquent in state taxes.

I-892’s backers are dishonest, scrupulous companies with questionable reputations. They stand to gain from I-892 while Washington stands to lose.

I-892 is clearly a bad investment that the people of Washington State should avoid by marking “NO” on their ballots in November 2004.

http://www.permanentdefense.org/

___________________________________

Clearly, this is a bad idea. Don't get sucked into the fairy tale of savings on property taxes.... that's just "paying off" the State so that the big gambling companies can take money OUT of the State and YOU can have a slot machine in every tavern bowling alley and (probably) coming soon to a conveneince store in your neighborhood... just like Nevada. Won't that be great?

The initiative allows slot machines to be in locations where only adults 21 and older have access to them. This is the same basic requirement as for beer and wine.... why would the gambling companies NOT press to have them in every convenience store? Think about it.

No on I-892

I must have missed something here:

"Great Canadian, I-892's largest contributor at $72,000...." and "Anti-892, Puyallup Tribes at $1,497,835 and Tulalip Tribes at $1,00,000..." I guess with those kinds of numbers, those evil foreigners don't frighten me too much.

And in my area the tribe has even refused to contribute for fire protection.

The dichotomy between Tribal sovereignty and Tribal Super Citizenship is an issue that must be addressed.

I-892 attempts to address one aspect of that dichotomy.

The American principle of equal rights and opportunity demand the passage of I-892.


Please heed the advice of a great Indian leader… And vote YES on I-892

"I only ask of the government to be treated as all other men are treated... that the same law shall work alike on all men... with one sky above us and one country around us, and one government for all... that all people may be one people."
--Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce
(In a speech on January 14, 1879 to President Rutherford B. Haynes and a large gathering of cabinet members, congressmen, diplomats generals and others)

The Tribal Casinos don't have a choice about contributing to local emergency services... its in their compacts (contracts) with the State. You may be seeing some negotiation by that Tribe regarding what they are willing to do beyond the minimum as many Tribal Casinos provide more than the minimum to their local community emergency services.

And you didn't read far enough in my previous post. That same Canadian Company just acquired the majority share in ANOTHER company (U.S.) that owns many non-Tribal Casinos in western Washington and is ALSO contributing to the YES group. I am sure you know how big business works in this country... many are backed by foreign investors.

For a mere pitance to the State, a pay-off really, this inititive would allow a few "backer" commercial gambling companies to walk in and take the cream off... and then carry it to Canada, Nevada or wherever.

Bad idea all the way around.

"The dichotomy between Tribal sovereignty and Tribal Super Citizenship is an issue that must be addressed.

I-892 attempts to address one aspect of that dichotomy.

The American principle of equal rights and opportunity demand the passage of I-892."

EXACTLY

well said Plunker

I second what AuntyM says and would also like to add I think I remember reading about some of the Indian tribes being backed,bankrolled or loaned funding to start up their casinos by some of the corporations from Nevada,Canada(etc) that pacificnw is referring to either that or someones fudging on their fish count tickets.

Pacificnw, You are right on topic. It just seems that some of the folks here are so anti-tribe that anything seen as having a negative impact against them is seen as a positive. And to address the one comment about having a slot machine on every corner. When you figure every restaurant that hasd a lounge, every bowling alley, every tavern or bar...that's a lot or corners....

Fot the pittance gained by introducing a Nevada like atmosphere into the state, far more would be seen as profits by the gambling establishments, who mostly out or state and/or country.

I also dont understand the argument from the media (etc) of the one on every corner whats the difference if there is a slot machine or a pull tab machine on the counter of a business that already has gambling on their premises