I am not surprised to hear Cathy (Christian) defend the indefensible -- her campaign's claim that because there are around 100 Indian tribes that we can expect more than 100 Indian casinos. I have in my hand a transcript of a phone conversation between the Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Circus Circus Mike Sloan and national gaming analysts.

In that phone conversation, on page 3, he attempts to explain that even if tribes were forced to comply with the Pala compacts, that due to their remote locations, gambling at most of the 100 Indian reservations would be unprofitable and not a threat to Nevada gaming interests. He said:

"You mentioned that there are 100 locations in California, but about 80 of them, from the best we can figure, are located in such remote and rural areas that the reason they don't have gambling now is it wouldn't make economic sense, and that won't change if the initiative is passed.

"Mike Sloan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Circus Circus Development Corporation
June 23, 1998

In other words, he said that due to the location of the vast majority of Indian lands, no gaming enterprises could be financially solvent. Obviously, this statement is not consistent with their campaign claims that Proposition 5 will create more than 100 casinos throughout California.

It is particularly disappointing to note that Circus Circus executive Sloan admitted that the expansion of Indian gaming made no economic sense on June 23, 1998, in plenty of time to stop the misleading scare ads that began running in mid-July. Despite his well-positioned point of view, he and other casino executives plotted a strategy to scare the voters that resulted in the TV ad the campaign has been running non-stop since July and their paid spokespeople continue to use that falsehood today.

What better evidence is needed to prove the ethical depravity of the Nevada casinos' scare campaign?