9 Pages Posted: 20 Nov 2007 Last revised: 20 Oct 2017
State governments have an inherent conflict of interest in the regulation of Indian gaming. Strict regulation of Indian gaming can be good for the long term health of the industry, but may impact short term revenues. States have a strong short term interest in maximizing gaming revenue.
Tribal governments should bear the primary responsibility for regulating Indian gaming. However, tribal regulators also have a weakness, namely, a myopia to the interests of other tribes and the national interests of the Indian gaming industry. Federal regulators can best protect the integrity of the industry nationally and ought to have a strong oversight role.
Federal regulators must support the independence of tribal gaming commissions within tribal governments and must remain vigilant against regulatory capture of tribal commissions. Congress should shore up regulatory authority over Class III Indian gaming.
Keywords: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Indian Gaming, National Indian Gaming Commission, Gambling, Indian tribes, American Indians, Indian law, Nativer Americans, Indian tribes
JEL Classification: L83
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Washburn, Kevin K., Testimony on the Regulation of Indian Gaming, Oversight Hearing on the [NIGC] Minimum Internal Control Standards, Before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, 109th Congress, 2nd Session (May 11, 2006). Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-49. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1030926 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1030926