Indian Nations as Interest Groups

Abstract

The expansion of Indian gaming has produced significant financial gains for Indian nations across the United States. In response to this influx of revenue, tribes have expanded their political activity, particularly in those areas that are heavily resource dependent. In this article the authors argue that adopting an organized interests perspective enhances scholars’ understanding of tribal political activity. To demonstrate this, they study Indian gaming contributions received by senators from 1990 to 2004. The authors apply broadly utilized theories of contribution patterns based on the value of access for a group and the cost of access to a member, focusing on ideology, access, electoral security, and constituency characteristics. The results indicate that tribes respond to all of these factors in ways similar to more traditional organized interests.

Incorporating Native American History into the Curriculum: Descriptive Representation or Campaign Contributions?*

“…Native American nations have not always received a lot of attention in the minority politics literature—more generally, scholars have not tended to give a lot of attention to their place within the broader American political system (though for some older, prominent exceptions, see Cornell, 1989; Corntassel and Witmer, ; Mason, ; Meranto, ; Nagel, ). More recent efforts (e.g., Boehmke and Witmer, ; Corntassel and Witmer, ; Evens, ; Wilkins, ) have not only shed new light on the myriad ways in which Native Americans interact with the federal government, but have also highlighted how Native Americans mobilize politically within the U.S. states. This article contributes to this growing research agenda, advancing our understanding of how Indian nations influence policy making below the federal level, and beyond matters of indigenous governance and sovereignty.…”

“…From 1999 to 2008, campaign contributions from Native Americans to political candidates increased 330 percent. These contributions most certainly play a role in affecting federal‐ and state‐level policy (Boehmke and Witmer, ). This leads to the following hypothesis:…”

“…Gaming Dummy . Since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988), gaming has afforded Native Americans increased opportunities to influence state policies (Boehmke and Witmer, ). We include this dummy variable to test whether—and if so, to what extent—gaming within states influences adoption.…”

“…The first is about descriptive representation (Branton, ; Maestas et al., ): when there are more Native American representatives in a state legislature, their demands for cultural recognition become harder to ignore. The second explanation has to do with Native American nations acting as interest groups (Boehmke and Witmer, )—when Native American nations make sizable financial contributions to campaigns, state officials have incentives to champion Native American history. Using a newly compiled data set, we find evidence that both mechanisms can explain whether there is adoption, but that only the latter can account for when there is adoption.…”

Tribal coalitions and lobbying outcomes: Evidence from administrative rulemaking

“…In an effort to resist further regulation and retain the rights of their governments and members, Indian tribes often engage in state‐ and national‐level political advocacy. They make campaign contributions and independent expenditures, offer committee testimony, mobilize American Indian voters, and contribute to agency rulemaking (Boehmke & Witmer, 2012; Carlson, 2021; Carpenter, 2017; Cowger, 2001; Hoxie, 2012; Viola, 1995; Wilkinson, 2006). The passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 provided many tribes with the resources to significantly expand the scope and viability of these efforts; Indian tribes now constitute over 40% of the population of national social, racial, and economic justice–oriented lobbying registrants, and since 1978, American Indian lobbying has increased by 600% (Carlson, 2022; Dwidar, 2022b).…”