Hawai'i prohibits gaming and Inouye has long opposed it, but he also supports American Indian tribes' right to self-rule, and he says that means they can choose for themselves whether or not to allow gaming on their reservations.

"I am deadly against gaming," Inouye said. "Yes, I am against the introduction of legalized gaming in Hawai'i. But, as I have said countless times publicly, Native Americans have the sovereign right to determine their own future and fate."

Inouye said gaming has had a positive effect on some tribes.

"For many, it has enabled tribal governments to address long unmet needs in a more effective way than decades of federal programs have accomplished," Inouye said.

The same could be said of the Native Hawaiian community, which is seeking federal recognition under a bill introduced by Inouye's fellow U.S. senator, Daniel Akaka. Though there are provisions in the Akaka bill that say it does not authorize a Native Hawaiian governing authority to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, nothing specifically prohibits it either.

The Mashantucket Pequot tribe's hotel, casino and conference center opened in 1997 at the Foxwoods Resort and Casino complex in Ledyard, Conn. The gaming complex has 1,400 rooms to accommodate guests in three hotels. Associated Press

"He's a huge proponent of Indian gambling as long as it is not in his state," said Jeff Benedict, president of the Connecticut Alliance Against Casino Expansion Inc. "Why is it good for the rest of the country then?"

But Inouye sees no contradiction: "I have philosophical differences with those tribes and nations that choose to have legalized gambling. However, it is their prerogative to make such a choice, and I defend their sovereign right to do so."

Donations increase

Indian casino money represents only 6.4 percent of the $2.7 million Inouye has received in this election cycle and ranks ninth among industries and interest groups giving to Inouye's campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group. Nine candidates have filed to run against Inouye this fall, but the senior senator, who turns 80 next month, is expected to easily win another term.

The contributions to Inouye parallel the rise in giving by casino-operating tribes to candidates nationwide. Giving by casino-operating tribes has increased from $1,750 in 1990 to nearly $6.8 million in 2002. So far in the 2004 election cycle, casino-operating tribes have made more than $4 million in political contributions.

The donations are "big for an industry that size," said Sheila Krumholz, research director for the center. "Indian gaming is special because it comes directly from the tribes and there are relatively few tribes for the donations they deliver."

Tribal leaders, lobbyists and government officials say the reasons tribes give to Inouye are simple: He is for protecting tribal sovereignty, he has helped elevate Indian affairs to national prominence, he is a powerful member of the Senate Indian Affairs and Appropriations committees, and tribes now have more money to give.

Experts said tribal casino money and Indian sovereignty are intertwined. Whether one is talking about land, jurisdictional or gambling rights, they're all discussed in the context of Indian sovereignty, which Inouye has said is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sue Shaffer, chairwoman of the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe in Oregon, said Inouye is a great advocate for their interests.

"In my estimation, tribal governments have never had as determined and dedicated a government official as Senator Inouye," Shaffer said. "So you do put bread upon the waters. You help people that help you."

But Benedict said that Inouye, as chief sponsor of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which permits and governs Indian gaming, has helped create a program that cannot be regulated by state or local governments.

"That is what is particularly insidious about this," Benedict said. "Say what you want about any other (interest group), but at the end of the day they have to answer to state and federal law, both."

Inouye, he added, "is the senator of one of two states (Hawai'i and Utah) that haven't been negatively impacted" by Indian gambling.

Gaming rights

Whether or not Native Hawaiians will be allowed to have gaming rights remains to be seen.

According to Inouye, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — which he helped write — does not permit Indian gambling in states that prohibit gambling.

The Akaka bill itself was modified in 2001 to state explicitly that it does not authorize a Native Hawaiian governing body to conduct gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Also, nothing in the Akaka bill provides eligibility to participate in any program provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which oversees Indian issues such as gaming.

Jacqueline Johnson, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, said many tribes needed to be reassured that Native Hawaiians could not seek gambling rights before they decided to support Native Hawaiian recognition. Tribes with casinos were concerned about competition.

That doesn't mean it still couldn't happen.

For Native Hawaiians to seek out gaming in Hawai'i, a few important actions must occur: Native Hawaiians must win federal recognition and the Hawai'i Legislature must act to permit gaming in the state. Then Native Hawaiians would have to secure lands and Congress might need to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to include Native Hawaiians.

Inouye acknowledged that in future years if circumstances change, "and if the state of Hawai'i should permit gaming, it may be possible — and I underscore the word 'may.' It may ultimately take the judiciary to resolve this matter."

If Hawai'i does allow it, "I hope and pray that Native Hawaiians do not get involved in gaming enterprises. As an insular state, we may find ourselves burdened with a host of problems that we clearly do not need."

However, there have been examples in which tribes opened casinos when state law prohibited casino-type gambling. In Texas, for example, both the Tigua Indians and the Alabama-Coushatta tribe opened casinos in 1999 and 2001, respectively.

In California, a number of tribes launched casino operations despite laws prohibiting them. Native Americans in that state spent tens of millions of dollars to lobby for passage of two propositions, the last amending the state constitution to allow for casino gaming long after casinos were built and operating.

The story was different, however, in Texas, where John Cornyn, then the state attorney general and now a U.S. senator, challenged both casinos in court and shut them down.

Barb Lindsay, national director for One Nation, a grassroots organization based in Oklahoma that opposes Indian gambling, said Native Hawaiians wouldn't have to take that route.

"If ethnic Hawaiians were to receive tribal sovereignty," Lindsay said, "I would imagine with the backing of non-tribal gambling interests they wouldn't have any trouble raising $50 million or more to convince the population in that state to change the law to allow gambling."

She said the best way to prevent gambling from coming to Hawai'i is to "prevent passage of the Akaka bill because the whole point of creating an ethnic Hawaiian government is to give them sovereignty. And once they have sovereignty, they can do whatever they want, whenever they want."

Accepting money now

Inouye said that for years, he refused to take Indian money, primarily because many tribes were too steeped in poverty and he wanted them to use the money to help their people.

Between the past two election cycles, however, Inouye was advised by Patricia Zell, minority staff director and chief counsel of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, that some tribes were beginning to feel insulted, that they felt they had a right to partake in the political process.

FEC records showed that in June and July of 2003, Inouye received $96,350 from about 52 tribes and individuals, most involved with casino operations. About $61,100 of that cluster came from a June 30, 2003, Native American-sponsored fund-raiser at a San Francisco hotel.

The money was received before a July 31, 2003, hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee in which testimony was taken on an Inouye bill that would give tribes more prominence in homeland security. It also would put into law recognition of tribal powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments.

Inouye explained that some tribes control about 260 miles of borderlands — of a total of 7,400 border miles — with Canada and Mexico, yet they receive no direct federal money to help secure those borders. He said Indian tribes often are a low priority in receiving homeland security money.

Inouye's bill met strong opposition — especially over language relating to Indian sovereignty — and it has languished since the hearing.

Some Indian leaders whose tribes gave to Inouye during June and July 2003 said there was no relationship between the bill and the contributions before the hearing.

Krumholz said the donations cluster to Inouye was "no reflection on him, but it indicates that tribes were trying to deliver a significant sum from a recognizable group. It is evidence of how the game is played.

"That is not to say money buys votes," she said. "Interests very often give to candidates before an event from which they stand to gain."

A second fund-raiser, held at the Foxwoods Resort and Casino in Connecticut on land owned by the Mashantucket Pequots — one of the wealthiest gaming tribes — raised $35,845 on Jan. 30, 2004. Inouye campaign officials said the Connecticut and San Francisco fund-raisers were organized by Native Americans.

Inouye said he does not ask tribes for money, although George Lewis, tribal chairman of the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin, said Inouye's campaign staff "solicited for donations." The Ho-Chunk nation contributed $2,000 on July 28, 2003.

"When there is a senator that comes up and wants a donation, during that time, if our budget can accept it, we will give."

On July 2, 2003, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in California donated $2,000. Deron Marquez, the tribe's chairman, said, "I wish I could say that we would strategically place funds in the grand scheme. We simply don't have that philosophy. It just occurred that way."

Inouye later said, "I do not organize fund-raisers for Native Americans to contribute to my campaign. If they contribute, they do so on their own."