CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / PROPOSITION 5
Indian Gaming Initiative Ads Simplify Complex Issue
Backers are portraying measure as a vote for Native Americans' self-reliance, although there are tribes that oppose it.
By JENIFER WARREN, Times Staff Writer
On TV, simplicity sells. Think of Madison Avenue's enduring
messages: "Just do it." "Got milk?" "It's the real thing." They're lean,
memorable.
Selling a ballot initiative is somewhat trickier than peddling jogging
shoes, but the logic's the same: Whittle it down to a concept voters can
digest, and pray they'll eat it up.
Supporters of Proposition 5--the November ballot initiative that would
remove many restrictions on Indian gambling--are doing just that.
Their challenge is formidable. The measure is complex and arcane, with
little direct bearing on the lives of most Californians. But on TV, it's
been boiled down to this: A vote for Proposition 5 is a vote for Indian
self-reliance.
"The ads are very understated but very compelling," said Darry Sragow,
a Democratic political consultant now managing the campaigns of
Democratic candidates for the state Assembly--some of whom accept
contributions from Indian gaming interests. "Their message is
clear--'Allow gambling on Indian reservations and you create hope and
opportunity for us.' It's hard for anyone to be against that."
In truth, of course, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are
Indian tribes that oppose Proposition 5--and still favor gambling and
self-sufficiency.
Those tribes are pitching their case in TV spots of their own. But
judging by a recent Times poll, they have some ground to make up.
The poll, conducted in mid-September, found that 57% of the state's
registered voters favor Proposition 5. Among those who had seen
commercials for and against the initiative, support stood at 64%.
"At this point, you have to give an advantage to the Yes on 5 side for
strategy and message," said Don Sipple, a GOP media consultant who has
reviewed the ads. "But there's a lot of time left."
Moreover, opponents of Proposition 5 have history on their side: It is
always tougher to pass an initiative than to defeat one. And when voters
are confused or unsure, they tend to vote no.
Supported by most of California's 104 Indian tribes, Proposition 5
would legalize video slot machines that are in use at several dozen
reservation casinos. Tribes opposed to the measure believe it would lead
to the proliferation of gambling statewide, making it more difficult to
lure customers to their casinos. They have signed individual agreements
with Gov. Pete Wilson permitting gambling on their lands.
No other ballot measure--or political race, for that matter--has
stimulated as much activity on the Golden State's airwaves this fall.
Spending Nears Record Levels
TV time costs money--lots of it--and experts predict that Proposition
5 may double the record for spending on a ballot measure. That mark was
set in 1996, when $57.5 million was spent on a securities fraud
initiative, Proposition 211. Proposition 9, the utilities initiative, is
also generating near-record spending.
Even before the Proposition 5 campaign hit full stride in early
summer, supporters had amassed nearly $25 million. Spokesman Steven
Glazer declined to give a current total--"for strategic purposes"--but a
full disclosure is due next week.
Opponents said they have spent more than $15 million so far, nearly
all of it collected from Caesars World, Hilton Hotels Corp. and other
Nevada casinos, which stand to lose business if gambling opportunities
increase in California.
Most of the money is paying for dueling TV ads, which have been airing
regularly since late spring. Analysts estimate that advertising spending
by both sides probably tops $3 million a week right now--a pace expected
to intensify as election day draws near.
The Yes on 5 spots were funded by an assortment of tribes calling
themselves Californians for Indian Self-Reliance. They won't talk much
about strategy, but political analysts say that the overriding goal of
their ad campaign is obvious: Persuade voters that the initiative will
help historically impoverished Indians pull themselves up by the
bootstraps.
"When you go into focus groups, people tell you that the Indians have
been screwed for hundreds of years and deserve a break," said Bill
Carrick, a Los Angeles political consultant. "Their ads tap into this
overwhelming sense of sympathy. That's smart."
Carole Goldberg, director of UCLA's joint degree program in law and
American Indian studies, agreed.
"The ads show that gaming provides an opportunity to redress some of
the terrible harm and hardship Indian people have suffered," said
Goldberg, who appears in an ad for the Yes on 5 campaign. "It's a matter
of simple justice."
The appeal works for conservatives and liberals alike, strategists
say. Some of the ads emphasize the fact that reservation casinos have all
but eliminated tribal unemployment and dependency on welfare. Others
feature Indians talking movingly about their lives and how gambling
revenues have brightened them.
"It's two pitches in one," said Jim Schultz, author of "The Initiative
Cookbook" and an expert on ballot measures. "For progressives, you have
the simple appeal of Indian faces and voices. For conservatives, the
pitch is, 'With gambling, we take care of ourselves. You don't pay for
it.' "
Visually, the pro-Proposition 5 ads are straightforward. Many of them
feature a ponytailed Mark Macarro, chairman of the Pechanga tribe in
Temecula, clad in bolo tie and denim pants, talking to the camera while
standing in a field.
Another is a "testimonial" ad depicting Francine Kupsch of the Los
Coyotes tribe in Warner Springs, who recalls her youth in a home lit by
kerosene lamps. Gambling revenue, she says, has finally brought
electricity to her reservation--a refrigerator and lights for her home.
Seeking to Deflect Scare Tactics
Featuring Native Americans in the ads helps overcome the "high level
of cynicism voters have for commercials in general and particularly for
political advertising," said Glazer, the spokesman for the Yes on 5
campaign.
"We thought it was important that the people most affected by this
issue talk the talk right from their own hearts."
Using tribal members also serves another tactical purpose--deflecting
the "scare tactics" used by opponents, said one official on the Yes on 5
team. "They give viewers a comfortable feeling about the initiative,"
this official said. "They demystify it and communicate the sense that
these are good people, not scary people who would build a casino in your
backyard."
One voter who has seen ads for and against the measure said the Yes on
5 message had hit home with him--and convinced him to vote in favor of
the initiative.
"I would like to see Indians become more independent, and it seems
like this is a way to do it," said Robert Shepner of Pebble Beach. Using
Indian people to speak in favor of the measure, he added, "was authentic
and made the ads persuasive for me."
Running through many of the Yes on 5 commercials is a powerful
subtext--the fact that Las Vegas casinos are financing the opposition.
The goal: Portray the initiative as a David and Goliath fight between
wealthy corporate gaming interests and struggling California Indians.
Two recent ads even claim that casino barons have bought off a few
tribes to use in their "deceptive campaign."
"In the past, when big, special interests wanted to take away what
Indians had, they sometimes hired Indians who were willing to fight their
own people," the ad says. "Now, the big Nevada casinos have recruited one
tribe to be in ads against Proposition 5."
In fact, more than one tribe has appeared in ads opposing Proposition
5--and they did so for free. In one spot--perhaps the most effective to
date from the no side--the chairwoman of the Rumsey Indians in Yolo
County explains that her tribe is expanding its successful casino--and
doesn't need Proposition 5 to do it.
That message is crucial to the no side's success, strategists say: "It
tells voters that Indian gaming will continue even without Proposition
5," says Don Sipple. "It's a subtle but important reframing of the
issue."
Over the summer, however, the opponents spent their time pursuing a
time-tested strategy for defeating ballot initiatives--raise as many red
flags as possible about the measure and hope that voters respond to one
of them.
"Different voter blocs need to hear different messages, so that's been
our approach," said Frank Schubert, manager of the No on 5 campaign.
"Conservatives need to understand that tribes don't pay taxes on casino
profits. Organized labor needs to hear there are no worker protections
under 5. And so on."
One particularly memorable spot suggested that Proposition 5, by
relaxing regulations on Indian gambling, would allow casinos to
proliferate in everyone's backyard.
As neon-lighted monstrosities sprout out of the ground on a
residential block, a couple jogging with their baby look on in horror.
"Proposition 5 gives us no vote and no voice," the narrator intones.
While "silly," the spot is memorable and "brings the issues of
gambling right into people's neighborhoods," said Dee Dee Myers, a former
press secretary for President Clinton and for Dianne Feinstein in her
1990 gubernatorial race. "It's important, because otherwise, what does
this initiative have to do with me?"
One voter, a Los Angeles mother of two who asked not to be identified,
said the mushrooming casino ad was the only Proposition 5 commercial she
remembered.
"It made a big impression. But I don't want to hurt the Indians,
either. I'm still not sure how to vote."