A debate allowing Indian gaming measure supporters and opponents to question each other produced more heat than light Tuesday as both sides traded accusations of distortions and misrepresentations.

Lester Marston, an Apache attorney whose clients include 16 California tribes, said an opponent's statements contained "so many misrepresentations of the facts that there's not enough time for me to respond."

That prompted Cathy Christian, legal counsel to the "No on 5" campaign, to say she was equally upset about misrepresentations by opponents.

At one point, Marston asked Christian to stop interrupting him, saying, "Will you be courteous enough to allow me to finish or do you want to just be rude and continue with your lies?"

Prop. 5 would allow tribes already offering gaming to continue free of limits on electronic game machines. Federal prosecutors say the machines are illegal without tribal-state agreements authorizing their use and have sought to shut them down.

The measure is supported by 85 tribes, including all nine tribes with gambling in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Inland tribes have provided more than $20 million of the nearly $25 million raised for the campaign as of the June 30 filing report, the most recent available.

Opposition to the measure comes mostly from two tribes and a coalition of business, labor and law-enforcement groups that is funded mostly by Nevada casinos.

Those opponents say tribes should accept restrictions demanded by Gov. Wilson. Eleven tribes have signed deals with the governor allowing them to operate casinos with limits on the number and types of games they can offer. They say approval of Prop. 5 could lead to more than 100 casinos in California, including some in major cities.

Tuesday's debate also focused on taxes paid by casinos, the popularity of electronic machines allowed under the governor's compact and whether tribes without gaming benefit more under the compacts or Prop. 5.

Christian challenged the "Yes on 5" campaign's claim that tribal casinos generate $120 million in annual taxes. Those gaming tribes pay no business or property taxes, she said. Christian also cited a report that the net effect of Indian gaming in California is to reduce state tax revenues by $100 million a year.

Prop. 5 backer Marston said tribal casinos employ 50,000 people and they pay millions of dollars in income taxes. Profits from casinos pay for roads, schools and services that would otherwise have to be funded by the state.

Marston said the new game devices allowed under the compacts will be unpopular with the patrons and will lose money for tribes. Those machines will require customers to wait about five seconds to learn whether they have won, he said.

Christian and other supporters of the governor's compacts have said the new machines will be just as popular with customers as the current games.

She also disputed Prop. 5 supporters' claims that the measure will benefit all California Indians by giving nongaming tribes a share of gaming profits.

Those tribes receive a better deal under the compacts, she said. It allows them to sell gaming rights to other tribes.

Each nongaming tribe could earn $1 million annually by selling casino rights under the governor's compacts, Christian said. By contrast, she estimated Prop. 5 would generate no more than $145,000 per year for each nongaming tribe.

Representatives of both campaigns have argued their cases at several other joint appearances, but Tuesday's event was the first debate with a format that allowed each campaign to directly question its opponents.

Both sides also have tentatively accepted invitations from the California Broadcasters Association to participate in a debate to be televised statewide. Details are still being worked out, but the debate will probably be held in mid-October at the studios of KESQ-TV in Palm Springs.

Published 9/23/1998