« 71 REASONS WHY JANUARY, 2007 MAY HAVE BEEN THE WORST MONTH IN MINNESOTA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY | Home | THE FIX: FRANKEN’S PAST COMMENTS COULD DAMAGE HIS CREDIBILITY AS A CANDIDATE »
SVIGGUM: TRIBAL CASINOS EXEMPT FROM SMOKING BAN; TRIBES DONATED $1.2 MILLION TO DFL
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 5, 2007
"The smoking ban also represents one of the greatest hypocrisies I've ever seen in a proposed mandate. You would expect that every workplace in Minnesota would be covered under a statewide smoking ban, wouldn’t you? That every employee is entitled to breathe clean, smoke-free air while working?
Under this proposal — which is being pushed by Democrats — tribal casinos would be exempt from following this statewide mandate. Oddly enough, Minnesota tribes are among the largest campaign contributors to Democratic lawmakers. According to a recent campaign finance report, Minnesota tribes put more than $1.2 million in the DFL’s campaign coffers through contributions and disbursements during the last election cycle. Not surprisingly, they are allowed to maintain their smoking privileges under this plan.
The Democrats have long insisted tribal governments have a monopoly on casino gaming. Now they’re insisting they have a monopoly on smoking in the workplace. Minnesota tribal casinos employ 13,000 people, but those workers will not have the freedom to breathe under this bill. Make no mistake, money talks; and if you have enough of it, you can apparently buy your way out of a mandate that forces every other employer in the State of Minnesota to comply." Source: Bemidji Pioneer, February 4, 2007
Click here for the complete commentary from Representative Steve Sviggum.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 43 Comments »
43 Responses to “SVIGGUM: TRIBAL CASINOS EXEMPT FROM SMOKING BAN; TRIBES DONATED $1.2 MILLION TO DFL”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:31 PM
ah yes, you forget the fact that State Law does not preside over Reservations though, only Federal and Tribal, so the State cannot impose the law on Rservations…
(for the record, i think it’s stupid that they’ll be exempt, but just letting you know the facts)
February 5th, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Of course there is always the possibility that the smoking ban would not extend to casino’s for the same reason it would not extend to Canada. Because they are soveigrn nations.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Because they are soveigrn nations.
And yet they expect us to build their roads for them, give them welfare when they want it, etc. etc. etc.
How signed this bad deal? Time to say “if you’re going to be an American, and if you’re going to use our services, then it’s time to actually BE an American who just happens to be of (insert tribe name here) decent and move on.”
Given this bad deal one has to wonder why they feel it necessary to fund the DFL party?
February 5th, 2007 at 1:27 PM
If it is the worker’s right to work in a smoke-free environment, then wouldn’t the tribe be violating the worker’s right? Were are the labor unions on this one? It’d be fun to see the tribes and the unions sock it out over who controls the DFL.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I did a quick internet search and see nothing that allows the state to regulate this on the rez.
You could make the argument that the Democrats are helping eliminate competition for the tribal casino’s. Not sure if the Bemidji paper knows something else about what power the state has over casinos.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:37 PM
If only the Minnesota Republicans would act this aggressively more often.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Jeff, etc. you know as well as the rest of us that there are ways, legislatively and otherwise to make sure the same worker protections mandated on other businesses in the state are in existence in tribal casinos.
The DFL is just bought and paid for by this and other special interests, so it is highly doubtful that they will take the necessary steps.
This isn’t about worker’s safety or anything of the sort, otherwise the DFL wouldn’t stand for this blatant inconsistency.
While there is at least the appearance that ban proponents are going to get their wish this session, there is still going to be a fight.
It will be interesting to see if the DFL stands up to this powerful interest in order to remain consistent in their position on this issue.
I doubt it.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Perhaps our legislators, in the name of protecting workers of course, should withhold road and welfare money until the Tribes adopt a comparable smoking ban to the one currently being debated.
Will the DFL propose this?
February 5th, 2007 at 1:50 PM
The state’s must have some power to regulate the Casino’s. After all, they wouldn’t be legal at all if the State didn’t allow them in the first place…
Also, do you think that the wait staff on Casinos earns the lower $2.85 per hour federal minimum wage (for those earning tips), or do you think they make the higher Minnesota state mandated minimum?
A complex matter to be sure, but to be sure, the state has authority to regulate certain aspects of any business whether on a reservation or not.
Thanks to the millions they’ve given to grease the skids, the DFL handed the tribes a sweetheart deal in the 1988(?)… and continues to ensure their monopoly on gaming in Minnesota. This is no exception.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:00 PM
As a republican, i say hats off to the DFL for having balls, unlike 90% of the GOP.
The DFL at least has the balls to be hypocrits and fugure out how to sell this to the public.
The GOP lacks the guts to stand on principal and stand up to the anti-smoking zealots and defend small independents businesses like bars and restaurants. The GOP does not deserve our support if they are not going to defend property rights and liberty in Minnesota.
At least the DFL is willing to go to bat for those who donate. The GOP is just ignoring the thousands of small business owners who make up a large part of their constituency.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Now that my rant is out of the way, here are my thoughts. I have great faith in Rep. Seifert to bring this up and have a vote and force the DFL to put its vote against small business but for casino interests on record.
I think we’ll have an amendment that will include the casinos. This would make sense since the DFL says this is all about health. The DFL will be backed into a corner on defending health.
FYI, for the record, I am OPPOSED to any smoking restrictions. if you don’t like it, don’t go to the bar, casino, or restaurant. If this is such a good idea, open up an establishment that is smoke free.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:08 PM
I am also pro-smoking, pro trans fat, pro booze, anti helemt, and pro fast food.
I am smart enough to make my own decisions. I know I am smarter than 99% of the elected officials and I know I can make better decisions than they can make for me.
I am even smart enough to know that if I go outsider today, in this ear of glabal warming, when the temperature is -10 F, that i need to wear a hat. I can’t believe I knew that without a law requiring me to do so.
I am also pro glass container, even booze containers, on beaches and boats!!!!
February 5th, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Kyle has a great point. IF (and this is a big IF I know) the state can enforce minimum wage and other employment laws on the tribes, then there is certainly precident for enforcing THIS “employment law” on the tribes and thus Michael’s allegations would be 100% correct.
It is certainly worth looking into. I wonder if our “watchdogs” in the media will do so?
LL
February 5th, 2007 at 2:28 PM
The issue of whether the state has the right to impose the smoking ban on casinos on reservation land really boils down to whether it was the state or the federal government that conferred the right to open casinos on reservation land. Because if it was the state that allowed the tribes to open casinos on reservation land then it sure makes sense that the state can regulate what occurs within casinos that are on reservation land. Regardless, this is a loser of an issue for the Dems.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:57 PM
http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2006/CampFin/YE/30555.pdf
February 5th, 2007 at 2:59 PM
And
http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2006/CampFin/YE/30555.pdf
February 5th, 2007 at 3:00 PM
http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2006/CampFin/YE/30348.pdf
February 5th, 2007 at 3:04 PM
far as i know from growing up 10 miles from a reservation in High School, they abide by the Federal Minimum Wage, unless the specific Tribal law enacts a higher one.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:10 PM
If DFL legislators are sincere that they want to ban smoking in to protect the powerless working class, then they should do everything in their power to include Casinos in this legislation.
If they are not willing to do so, it seems to follow that they are willing to purposely hurt workers in order to protect these mega donors.
It is pretty shameful that if you give some DFLers enough money, they are willing to give people cancer. (assuming you buy into the second hand smoke arguments, which those DFLer must).
February 5th, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Why does the DFL accept campaign money from foreign “soveigrn nations”? That’s the issue here.
If the DFL had no power to help or hurt the tribes why would the tribes try to buy them off.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:23 PM
The state can enforce nothing on tribal properties, no min wage, no smoking ban,……. absolutely nothing. Native Americans can and do, anything they want, on the reservations. They are only under Federal Laws, they just suck the state for money thats all. You want a real travesty -Red Lake – they took a Minnesotans boat and gear with automatic rifles and the state of MN just sat on their hands and let it go.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Kind of some irony…when Republicans wanted the poor tribes to open big-time casino’s in St Paul, Dems blocked it. So:
So the family values party wanted to increase gambling hugely in the Twin Cities
The Democrats, you know, the little feller, worked to keep improvished tribes poor so their rich donators can become even richer yet.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:38 PM
And now the Dems want to allow those same donors to force cancer and emphysema on their employees.
I guess we see how the Unions rate.
The Dems are under the thumb of the Unions only up to the point that it conflicts with the Tribes.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:36 PM
The casinos are on Sovereign land, so state law wouldn’t apply.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:48 PM
>So the family values party wanted to increase gambling hugely in the Twin Cities
No, the family values party was using what little leverage it had to get the rich tribes to share the wealth with the poor tribes.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Pawlenty, a REPUBLICAN, supports the smoking ban. Silly to blame the Dems for this one.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Sammie — understand the conversation before weighing in.
Rudy… see my advice to Sammie.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:35 PM
The casinos are on Sovereign land, so state law wouldn’t apply.
Don’t slip and fall at a casino – you’re out of luck. If you’re an employee and are injured on the job, forget about it because they’re not interested in helping you (unless you’re one of them). It is sincerely a major risk for any non-indian to walk onto their property.
If they’re not interested in helping you after your injury (employee or customer), you don’t have ANY recourse. None. Zero.
Why any non-indian would ever step foot in one of these places is beyond me.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Kyle
Your arrogance is pretty incredible. I think maybe you are the one that should follow the conversation.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:58 PM
As far as I can tell, the only reason Indian casinos are even in the article is to whip up anti-Indian prejudice in order to make the issue more divisive.
Oh, they let them have casinos, and they’re raking it in! We can’t even have video poker, and now we have to go smoke-free? Might as well burn the bar down for the insurance.
As a non-smoker, I’m against the smoking ban in bars and bar-restaurants where the food is smaller business. There should be legal ways to congregate and engage in legal activity. Otherwise just ban cigarettes altogether.
Smoking on Indian reservations is under the jurisdiction of the tribes, as far as I can tell. There is no Minnesota government agency with responsibility for overseeing tribal gaming. Federal law treads lightly.
We have non-expiring compacts with the tribes. We cannot force renegotiation or terminate them unilaterally. Nor can we tax gaming revenues.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/gambling.htm
http://www.nigc.gov/LawsRegulations/IndianGamingRegulatoryAct/tabid/605/Default.aspx
The idea of withholding other monies is interesting, but probably ineffective. Seems to me that tribes are already working hand-in-hand with local governments to improve road access – no one wants to sink those efforts by tribes to invest back into the state.
At any rate, we shouldn’t attempt to force Indian casinos to be non-smoking. Mistake Lake already provides large non-smoking areas to accomodate us non-smokers, and I for one really appreciate it.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:24 PM
The saddest thing is that smokers are so goddam addicted that they can’t go out to a bar for an hour without having to light up. They would rather see their neighborhood bar close up – one that’s been welcoming them for YEARS – and drive out to a suburb than to continue to support their friends and neighbors’ bar (that’s in Hennepin County). If there’s a statewide ban they’ll be fricking driving to Canada so they can blow smoke in someone else’s face. How pathetic is that.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Sorry, not Canada. Their bans are more restrictive than ours. South Dakota – there’s a good backwards state.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Brian,
I appreciate that you are against the state wide smoking ban. But if the ban is going to pass, why shouldn’t we try to force Indian casinos to be smoke free? Assuming the arguments are correct, second hand smoke doesn’t stop causing cancer when it gets on the Indian Reservations.
You are correct that the compacts were negotiated in perpetuity. Who can we, the taxpayers of Minnesota, thank for that? Skip Humphrey and the DFL. What does the DFL receive as its thanks? Millions of dollars in donations. I know you are against big corporations puting money into politics. At least they have to do it through individual donations to PACs. The tribes can literally pull Brinks trucks to the side of the casinos and fill them up with money to be used as campaign contributions. No other business in the United States can do that — not even Las Vegas casinos.
If the DFL wants to save lives by passing the smoking ban, they should do everything they can to protect the thousands of lives who visit and work for tribal casinos.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Holy shit… I just agreed with Brian Hanna on something (smoking ban)… Someone take away my Internet.
Citations to the gaming compacts are good to (knock me over with a feather)… but I don’t know that clears up whether the state has authority to regulate certain business activities, particularly in the gaming industry.
Does the state have no authority over food-safety, liquor licenses (liquor is not served at Mystic, but is at others) etc? If not, then who… Fed gov’t doesn’t…
If the state has authority in these areas, then it must have the same regarding smoking bans… and if that is the case, then there is no reason to exempt casinos from those bans. This isn’t really about regulating gaming, afterall.
Moreover, if the State has no authority… then why write in the exemption? Seems like contributions by the tribes have paid off in special treatment by the DFL.
Again, I’m a non-smoker and also oppose the bans (if Tobacco is that bad, ban the product not where it’s used… solve the problem, don’t create a cause… blah blah blah)…
If someone can indicate definitively that the State actually has no purview over labor, food, etc… then please cite it.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Ok, are people slow here or what? The state CANNOT band smoking on the tribal casinos even if they wanted to. Why does the DFL take money from these tribes? Because the DFL runs federal canidates who DO have say on tribal issues. God lord people!
So Bob, are you going to retract this article since its author is blatanly misinformed and it has no tenable point to make? For your own credibilty, I hope so.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:20 PM
James, you have no idea what you are talking about if you don’t think there are pressures that can be exerted for the sake of consistency.
And if you think that the DFL gets tribal money for their federal candidates, your are nuts. In fact, much of the money sits in state accounts that can’t be used for federal candidates (and there is a lot of tribal money in state candidate accounts).
What you wrote here should embarrass you.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:04 AM
To sum this argument up:
1) Reservations are Soverign lands under the direct authority of the federal government. No state smoking ban will be enforceable on said reservations.
2) There is NO exemption in the bill saying this. It has been this way for the history of tribal sovereignty.
3) Republicans claim to be the party of free will, unless that free will is being exhibited by sovereign nations who donate money to their opponents.
4) If Canadians were big donors to the democrats, Steve Sviggum would attempt to pass an Ontario smoking ban, even though he lacks the authority.
5) Republicans are proving with this issue that racism is alive and well as a party platform.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:16 AM
“sovereign nations who donate money to their opponents. ”
Again, why is the DFL accepting political donations from a sovereign nation? That race card has been overplayed, Freddy. Canadians can’t donate to the DFL.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Steve Sviggum, the face of republican intolerance to differing skin tones, tried to pass legislation that would ban just such activity a few years back, (When he was in firm control of the House) and he was laughed out of the building.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:45 AM
If the tribes are a sovereign nation, why are they allowed to contribute money to political races in the state and federal government? Can France contribute to local races? Germany? What’s the diff? Doesn’t state law prohibit foreign or local governments from making campaign contributions? Or is that a little loophole the DFL doesn’t want anyone to notice?
February 6th, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Sorry folks, the State in all likelyhood CAN regulate smoking, food and beverage services in Indian Casinos. If they couldn’t, why would the exception be written in? Also, the State already regulates food, beverage and other business relationships with the Casinos.
Denying the impropriety doesn’t negate that it exists you liberal pukes.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Food and health regulations are primarily federal in nature, making them enforceable on reservations. This smoking ban will be state regulatory rather than federal regulatory or criminal, so law enforcement will have no jurisdiction over the reservations when it comes to this.
And there is only one Indian specific exemption in the bill, and that is for religious uses of smoke for OFF RESERVATION purposes. There is absolutely no exception in the law allowing smoking in casinos, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
I guess what I am saying is, Steve Sviggum is a liar, and there isn’t a damn thing any one of you can do to dispute my claim.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Fred, the Fed gov’t does not regulate restaurants and the food service industry… the states do. I was impressed with some of the early comments, but that one is complete bullshit.
You are also right, however, that there’s not a specific exemption written into the bill, so this seems to have spiraled out of control.
I heard the concern about how businesses close to the casinos would deal with the ban not applying to the casinos. … but I guess if some stupid, smelly cancer craver is going to drive extra miles to stink up the place while he/she eats dinner, so be it.
I oppose that the bans need to be legislated. If smoking is so awful, then criminalize the product. Quit dragging it out over decades.
This is just stupid.