Skip to main content

Compact Dispute Solution: End the Casino Monopoly


With Governor Stitt and Oklahoma’s tribes at loggerheads over the gaming compact, it seems like a good time to reconsider the tribes’ gambling monopoly altogether. While there is only one Las Vegas, Oklahoma is a casino state. And regardless of the dispute between the governor and the tribes or its outcome, Oklahoma will remain a casino state. The question we should ask ourselves is, why should the tribes be exclusively able to operate casinos?

As I understand the history, casino gambling exclusively allowed of tribes in other states arose out of a legitimate need for impoverished reservations to generate some cash flow. Reservations, in my opinion, are basically great big quasi-autonomous concentration camps. In Arizona, where I lived for nearly a decade, I found reservations to be sad, undeveloped, generally poverty-stricken places with a few poorly-exploited natural attractions that tourists could have attended in greater numbers if anybody had the incentive to promote them. It’s easy to understand why tribes in those circumstances would jump at the chance to generate a relatively easy cash flow from gambling attractions, limited to the geographic confines of the reservations, and why sympathetic lawmakers would agree to let it happen.

But Oklahoma does not have reservations. Consequently, tribal members have largely fully integrated into the prevailing culture and have benefitted by apparently becoming just as prosperous as any other group of people. Congress still recognizes Oklahoma’s reservation-less tribes, and this grants the tribes some privileges others of us do not enjoy. Given history, this might well be justified, but it is not apparent that there is now, or ever really was, a strong justification for the grant of a monopoly over an industry other than that it happened elsewhere. Casinos in this state are not restricted to specific territories, although the laws and regulations on permissible locations can be restrictive, confusing, and arbitrary.

Thus, casinos in Oklahoma are fairly ubiquitous, and they tend to be located close to the interstates and are common on our borders. That’s just good business. The largest casino is practically on the border between Texas and Oklahoma on I-35. As any frequent traveler on I-44 and I-35 knows, when headed north out of Texas on either of these two highways, it can be quite the adventure dodging all the vehicles with Texas plates slowing for the exits to the casinos. After mile marker 5 or 6, though, traffic becomes relatively clear.

That’s the main reason casino gambling will not be shut down in Oklahoma, no matter what happens with compact negotiations and legal disputes. Casinos bring too much money into the state, even with tribes being the primary beneficiaries of surrounding states’ inhabitants’ gambling habits.

So, if casino gambling is not going away and it’s already pretty much all over the place even with the difficult-to-understand restrictions on their locations, why should the tribal monopoly continue? A more competitive casino gambling industry is likely to bring even more money into the state. Competitive industries are generally larger and richer than monopolized ones. Sure, to some extent Oklahoma’s casinos compete with those in Las Vegas, Louisiana, New Jersey and other states, but the head-to-head competition that made Las Vegas great is relatively muted in Oklahoma by its limitation to tribes.

This is not just a practical issue. It is also a moral one. As Howard Hughes (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) pointed out to a U.S. Senator in the movie, The Aviator, granting monopolies is downright un-American. For those who have a problem with making the expansion of the gambling industry a moral imperative, keep in mind that while casino gambling is exploiting a vice, so is selling liquor in a bar, and so is selling state-sponsored lottery tickets out of a neighborhood convenience store. If people want to keep casinos out of their communities, there are legal means to do so, some of which are far more likely to prevail over, say, a Steve Wynn wanting to open a casino than over tribes wanting to do the same.

So the bottom line is this. Let’s end the tribal monopoly over casino gambling in Oklahoma and open the industry to anyone willing to compete.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v...
Read more

Supreme Court Frees States From Oppressive Blaine Amendments; School Choice Is Within Reach For Legislature

Last week SCOTUS told Montana, and by extension, the other 49 states that they can't exclude religious schools from generally applicable school choice programs simply because they are religious. This should have been the self-evident conclusion of anyone who read the First Amendment through the lens of history. The idea that the founders would have allowed states to discriminate against religious schools is foolish.   At the time of the founding, many states had established religions. It was only the federal government that was prevented from establishing a religion. It was also barred from interfering with states’ establishments. The relevant phrase is “ Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (emphasis added) The constitution has since been amended, and most of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights have been applied to or “incorporated against” the states - that is why state police can no longer search ...
Read more

School Choice: I Have Erred

I should point out, before the reader gets into this piece, that these are my personal thoughts. Right around last Labor Day, I suddenly had a thought. I quickly made a calculation and realized that, as of the day after Labor Day, I’ve worked full-time in public policy for 25 years – a quarter of a century. While there really is nothing fundamentally more special about a 25 th anniversary than a 24 th or 26 th one, it is a widely-recognized demarcation point. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to take time and write down reflections on my career. My work has touched on several policy areas, but I’ve been thinking a lot about public education lately. That’s the area I practically swam in when I started my career, so here are my thoughts. On the day after Labor Day in 1994 I started work for a member of the Texas House of Representatives. He was the member who always carried a voucher bill, an issue for which I was thrilled to work. By that time, my wife had homeschooled our dau...
Read more

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c...
Read more