OPINION

Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy and wire fraud, is not typical of big-time Washington lobbyists. I refer not to his slimy methods or capacity for deception – which, regrettably, are in abundant supply among lobbyists, both Republican and Democrat – but to the magnitude of the fees he charged his clients: casino-owning Indian tribes.

From 2001 through 2004, according to findings of a Senate investigation, Abramoff and his partner split more than $60 million in fees charged to Native American tribes seeking to protect and expand their gambling monopolies.

For a corrupt lobbyist with grandiose ambitions, casino-rich tribes were the perfect clients. Indian gaming has grown from a handful of bingo parlors in the late 1980s to a $19 billion industry with more than 400 gambling establishments in 30 states. And the tribes spend lavishly on politics.

In 1998, California tribes with casino interests spent $70 million on a ballot measure to permit the building of large, Las Vegas-style casinos. In 2000, tribes in California spent another $30 million to secure the passage of a ballot initiative to remove remaining legal obstacles to casinos, while prohibiting competition from nontribal casinos.

The Wall Street Journal recently labeled tribal gambling the "least transparent large industry in the United States." Shielded by tribal sovereignty – a legal doctrine giving them the status of quasi-independent, sovereign governments – gambling-rich tribes are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and federal disclosure requirements applicable to public companies that own casinos in Las Vegas, Reno, and Atlantic City.

In California tribes are exempt from the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. And in two cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, tribes even claim to be exempt from state laws mandating the disclosure of political spending in statewide elections. The tribes argue that they may spend on a California election without limit – effectively purchasing victory in their ballot initiatives, as they did in 1998 and 2000 – yet may ignore disclosure requirements that apply to all other campaign contributors.

Abramoff's tribal clients were, to be sure, victims of the lobbyist's corrupt dealings. But the tribes might not have been so vulnerable to being ripped off if they had been less fond of secrecy. Tribes that operated openly and were accountable to tribal members might have faced skeptical questioning about their huge payments to Abramoff's firm. Questions like "What are the lobbyists doing with our money?" "Why pay so much more than the fees paid by other lobbying clients?"

Contrary to what tribal leaders believe, sovereignty does not require secrecy. In fact, greater transparency for their casino operations is in the tribes' interest. Transparency would enhance tribes' credibility and the value of their casino holdings. Most important, a policy of openness would empower tribal members, who are too often in the dark about essential tribal business. SFBG

Peter Scheer