State lobbying registration by native American tribes
Abstract
The forms of political participation utilized by Indian nations have changed dramatically since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The emergence and expansion of Indian gaming since then have provided tribes with an increased motivation to interact on a government-to-government basis with state governments; it has also provided them with the financial resources to do so in myriad new ways. During this period, tribes have increased their presence in state capitals through direct lobbying. In this paper, we study tribes’ decision to lobby state governments. In particular, we are interested in the role of tribal resources and gaming operations in determining which tribes decide to register to lobby state governments. Using Gray and Lowery's data set that list all lobbying registrations in the 50 states from 1997 to 1999 and the year 2007, we find significant variation in lobbying registrations among Indian nations. We model the lobbying registration decision at the tribal and state levels, using data on gaming compacts and amendments, tribal resources and state characteristics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent studies document how tribal governments use increasingly diverse and sophisticated strategies to influence state and local politics.
“Recent studies document how tribal governments use increasingly diverse and sophisticated strategies to influence state and local politics (Boehmke and Witmer 2015;Evans 2011;Hansen and Skopek 2011;Holyoake 2009;Johnson and Witmer 2020).”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Boehmke and Witmer 2015
Recent studies have demonstrated that states are involved in making Indian law and policy.
“Recent studies have demonstrated that states are involved in making Indian law and policy (Boehmke and Witmer 2015;Johnson and Witmer 2020;Witmer, Johnson, and Boehmke 2014).”
From Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i> (2023) · cites this paper as Boehmke and Witmer 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after<i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i>
Carlson, K. M. (2023) · Publius: The Journal of Federalism · doi:10.1093/publius/pjad020 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Boehmke, F. J., & Witmer, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- Creighton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Witmer, Richard
- Venue
- Politics, Groups, and Identities
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-06-05
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 633-648
- ISSN
- 2156-5503 (ISSN-L)
- 2156-5511
- OpenAlex
- W1011756041
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Politics Groups and Identities (publishedVersion)
- Creighton Digital Repository (CDR) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- Native American tribes, lobbying registration, Indian gaming, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribal political participation, government-to-government relations, state government
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review