After reading Jim Boren's column ("State's Indian gaming tribes bet on ballot box," Oct. 17, Page B-7) regarding Indian gaming and his comparing them to special interest groups, I find I couldn't agree more. I just wonder why he picked only the public employees unions to compare them to as special interest groups. Why not include the Nevada gaming lobbyists, the medical and drug lobbyists, law lobbyists, contracting associations lobbyists? All of these are special interest groups?
At least with Indian gaming, voters ultimately decide the issue. In return, Indian casinos pay money to the state in the form of negotiated revenue. That's more than we get from most special interest groups.
As far as people gambling the rent, that's a personal choice that will happen whether they have to drive to Nevada or an Indian casino. Boren says the Indian casinos have one basic rule: "The more money they get, the more money they want." Isn't this the basic rule with any business?
DENNIS DEL CORNO