>From the Legislative Ethics Committee in the California State Legislature.  

Thoughts that arose while reading this: 1) If the PRA laws do end up
applying to tribes, what basis is used to determine which other state laws
would be applicable to tribes.  2) If the tribes are not covered by the PRA
and other Campaign Finance Laws (i.e. contribution limits) were the laws
written in such a way that the candidates still would be.  For example in
California we have contribution limits as everyone knows, but if the limits
are found not to apply to the tribes, one would assume they would still
apply to the candidates (if the law was written that way).

 -----Original Message-----

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, whom the FPPC sued last year for
failure to comply with the Political Reform Act's campaign reporting
requirements, has lost another round in its claim of tribal immunity from
the PRA.
On March 31st, the Sacramento Superior Court (Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians v. FPPC, Sacramento Superior Court, Case Number C043716) ruled in
the tribe's motion to quash service that the doctrine of tribal immunity did
not shield the tribe from its obligation to comply with the PRA when making
contributions to state or local candidates.  On April 24th, the California
Third District Court of Appeal summarily denied the tribe's motion in that
court for a writ of mandate to order the FPPC to stop enforcing the PRA
against the tribe.
Since the Superior Court's decision was only a ruling on a motion to quash
and not on the entire case and the Third DCA's decision a denial of the writ
and not a formal consideration on the merits, the case is technically still
alive in the Superior Court and can be set for trial.  Although a loss at
trial seems a foregone conclusion, the tribe can still file a formal appeal
after that to the Third DCA and receive formal consideration on the merits.
However, the Third DCA's denial of the writ is a possible indicator that the
tribe won't fare too well in that court either.  This is particularly true
since the Superior Court judge already has made a decision on the legal
issue that would be appealed and the Third DCA apparently didn't view it as
something that needed immediate attention.
The conventional wisdom is that this case will eventually get to the US
Supreme Court.