Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Background  





2 Attempt to investigate campaign contributions  



2.1  Response from the Clinton Administration  





2.2  Support for the tribes  







3 Outcome  





4 References  





5 External links  














Wampumgate







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Wampumgate refers to the controversy around the July 14, 1995 rejection of an Indian gambling project proposed by three impoverished Chippewa Indian tribes who hoped to establish a casinoinHudson, Wisconsin, located just outside the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul.[1]

Background[edit]

Documents uncovered by Congressional investigators, lawsuits and an Independent Counsel (Carol Elder Bruce) showed evidence that political contributions and pressure from lobbyists from rival tribes caused Bruce Babbitt to overrule staff recommendations and deny the casino application. The opposing tribes included the Ho-Chunk, Mdewankaton Sioux and six other tribes, mostly from neighboring Minnesota, who felt the Hudson casino would interfere with their own highly lucrative gambling operations.[2] When Babbitt gave conflicting explanations of the incident to Congressional leaders, Atty Gen Janet Reno, who had resisted an independent probe of campaign finance, asked a judicial panel to appoint an outside prosecutor to probe Bruce Babbitt's role in the rejection as well as the influence of campaign contributions.[3]

Attempt to investigate campaign contributions[edit]

The Chippewas engaged Phoenix attorney and longtime Babbitt confidant Paul Eckstein to act as an informal liaison with Babbitt. Eckstein later became incensed when Babbitt hinted to him at a private meeting that the decision to turn down the tribes was influenced by campaign contributions from the opponents. Janet Reno denied the independent counsel right to probe broader campaign fund-raising issues in the Clinton administration.[4]

Response from the Clinton Administration[edit]

President Clinton supported Bruce Babbitt in his overruling regional Interior officials. Records from the Interior Department showed that the office of Harold Ickes, then Pres Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, did in fact contact Babbitt's aides about the Hudson project. In addition, Donald Fowler, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made phone calls to senior Interior Department staff on behalf of the opposition and there were numerous contacts between Interior staff and lobbyists and officials from the opposing tribes. One prominent lobbyist, Patrick O'Connor, spoke directly with President Clinton in Minneapolis about the matter, triggering calls to the White House from Air Force One by Bruce Lindsey. O'Connor later contacted Ickes directly regarding Hudson.

Support for the tribes[edit]

The wealthy tribes had strong support from influential people, including Fowler. They were also supported by Sen. Paul Wellstone and U.S. Reps Jim Oberstar, David Obey and Tom Barrett, particularly Wellstone, who led the Minnesota delegation in organizing to quash the Wisconsin tribes' effort. Four of the tribes gave $56,000 to Democrats in 1995 and $225,000 in 1996. Those tribes also had donated heavily to Wellstone and Oberstar.[5]

Outcome[edit]

The Independent Counsel eventually did not find prosecutable evidence of wrongdoing, though did note major irregularities in the decision process. In 2000 the Interior Department chose not to continue fighting a lawsuit by the tribes in the Hudson partnership and reversed its earlier denial of the casino application. However, the measure eventually failed to win needed approval by then-Wisconsin governor Scott McCallum.[6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Publisher, Is A Former (November 14, 2021). "Peter Dykstra: Revisiting ghosts of the Interior's past". EHN. Archived from the original on January 12, 2024. Retrieved January 12, 2024.
  • ^ [1] NY Times Sinking of Casino Plan Makes Tribes Cry Foul September 10, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18.
  • ^ [2] NY Times, RENO REQUESTING A COUNSEL TO LOOK AT BABBITT MOVES February 12, 1998, By DAVID JOHNSTON, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1
  • ^ [3] Archived 2016-05-03 at the Wayback Machine Washington Post Babbitt Probe to Focus on Memory of Discussion , March 29, 1998; Page A08
  • ^ [4] NT Times, Mr. Babbitt's Troubling TestimonyOctober 31, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 26
  • ^ [5] Archived 2007-06-12 at the Wayback Machine Report of the Independent Counsel, In Re: Bruce Edward Babbitt Carol Elder Bruce, Independent Counsel, August 22, 2000
  • External links[edit]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wampumgate&oldid=1224452994"

    Categories: 
    Cabinet scandals in the United States
    Clinton administration controversies
    Native American history of Wisconsin
    St. Croix County, Wisconsin
    1995 in American politics
    1995 in Wisconsin
    July 1995 events in the United States
    1995 controversies in the United States
    Hidden categories: 
    Webarchive template wayback links
    Articles with short description
    Short description is different from Wikidata
     



    This page was last edited on 18 May 2024, at 14:20 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki