Calpundit picks up on a point made by Atrios on "Indian Gaming Interests":

INDIAN GAMING....Atrios makes a good point today:

As it happens, I'm not especially happy about Indian gaming, and I'm not especially happy about the lobbying they do. However, there are plenty of businesses that get unique concessions from the government — like, say, billion-dollar no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq — and who spend their profits by aggressively lobbying for their interests in both Sacramento and Washington D.C.

Um, yes. And folks like Calpundit and Atrios make quite a point of drawing our attention to those sweetheart deals and their potential affect on political policy (as well they should). So I'm not quite sure I get Atrios' point (and Calpundit's concurrence): are they arguing that we should ignore all special interest lobbying? Or just that done by Indian gaming interests? Atrios concludes:

Either Bustamante is or isn't breaking campaign finance laws by accepting their money, and if he isn't then it's time to stop referring to the money as "controversial."

Sure. Just as soon as y'all agree to stop calling all energy industry contributions to the Bush campaign controversial.

Atrios seems to be trying to sound like he's arguing for treating Indian gaming lobbying just like all other lobbying --- but in fact, he's arguing to make a special exception for it.

Update: Calpundit kindly responds in the comments, and noted that I didn't include his entire argument. Fair enough: here's the rest! This picks up right after "and Washington D.C." above:

I don't think gaming should be restricted to tribal interests, but the fact is that the tribes aren't doing anything different than any other industry. So feel free to oppose artificial restrictions on gaming — as I do — and feel free to oppose the insidious triangle of corporate welfare, insider lobbying, and payola masquerading as campaign contributions — as I do — but the only reason to get more outraged about Indian gaming than any other cosseted industry is because us white guys aren't getting a piece of the action.

Sadly, whites aren't likely to get over their victimization complex anytime soon. It's a real cultural problem, and one that white leaders ought to be spending more time addressing.

I admittedly didn't address this last part of Kevin's argument, and we do appear to be in agreement that it is appropriate to oppose Indian gaming lobbying just like any other interest (can't speak for Atrios on this point; still not sure where his head is at. But that's not a new feeling for me).

But where does the "white" victimization complex come in? I don't get the sense folks are raising eyebrows at the Indian gaming contributions because they come from groups that aren't "white". I get the sense they're raising eyebrows because they're frickin' huge. Or am I just out of touch with California politics, and $2 million isn't a lot of money for a campaign donation?

Update Update: Another re-reading makes clear that Kevin is not being entirely serious with his last few sentences... although I'm not exactly sure where he starts with the funny and ends with the serious (even if the last bit is in jest, it certainly seems to be only partially so). But if I've misinterpreted again, well, I just plain give up.