Home › Blogs › Eric Earling's blog ›

1st Game Changer in the WA St. Governor's Race

Submitted by Eric Earling on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 09:34
in
 
There are lots of things a candidate and a campaign can control to a degree in a given race. How the press chooses to cover a particular story is usually not one of those. Thus, while today's Seattle P-I story on the tribal cash pouring in to support Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire is not necessarily a surprise given the details of the topic, the tone of the coverage means this story will leave a mark.

The lede starts out rough:

OLYMPIA -- Gov. Chris Gregoire is benefiting from more than $650,000 in campaign contributions from Indian tribes that hit the jackpot in 2005 when she killed a gambling compact potentially worth more than $140 million a year to the state.

Unlike 22 other states that collect millions from revenue sharing agreements for tribal gambling, Washington gets no money from tribal casinos under the compact that Gregoire renegotiated with the Spokane Tribe.

There is little good that can come of that in Washington stat that seems to have a hypersensitivity to even the appearance of conflict of interest. And its not just the appearance:

"It's a payoff," said University of Nevada-Las Vegas professor William Thompson, who has been studying tribal gambling since 1988. "She shouldn't take any campaign money, nor should her political party, and it smells too quid pro quo for my liking."

One wonders if those tribal casinos would be willing to take wagers on that passage appearing in a campaign ad in support of Republican challenger Dino Rossi this fall.
 
Eh, probably not.
 
Regardless of the betting opportunities of the general public before November, the P-I even catches a Democratic legislator bemoaning the deal in question:
 
"Why would you give someone a monopoly without taking a cut?" asked Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle.
 
[snip]
 
But Jacobsen, the Seattle state senator, said there wasn't enough transparency.
 
"By the time anybody in the Legislature heard about it, it was a done deal. There are a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, who were a little bit grumpy about that because, God, that's a lot of money we gave them without getting anything back."
 
Asked if there should there be a firewall between groups that negotiate with elected leaders, Jacobsen said: "When you start talking money, people are getting tempted," adding that even if there isn't outright corruption, it looks bad.

Yes, it does look bad. The local transparency-minded media loathes to see such appearances of back room dealing. And this is most definitely not the last the body politic has heard of this issue in the Evergreen State before November.

Cross-posted at Sound Politics.

0
Your rating: None

Comments