Assemblymember Evan Low represents a Silicon Valley district that could lose tens of millions of dollars in local tax revenues if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs a bill that would allow casino-owning tribes to sue their competitors, private card rooms.

So it was surprising that Low, a Democrat who’s running for Congress in the 16th Congressional District, twice voted this summer for the measure and against the card rooms.

Now, one of the bill’s biggest supporters, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, has bought $60,000 in radio ads supporting Low’s campaign for a congressional race that’ll be decided by voters almost 500 miles from the tribe’s reservation and its large casino in San Diego County.

It’s illegal for lawmakers to pledge a vote in exchange for a campaign donation, and there’s no evidence that happened in this case. But Sean McMorris, a program manager for California Common Cause, said the Viejas ads appear to be political payback for Low’s votes in the Assembly.

“Even though there was probably no coordination between Evan Low and this (political action committee),” McMorris said, “I can probably guarantee you they wouldn’t have spent that money if Assemblymember Low didn’t vote for their interests.”

Tauri Bigknife, the tribe’s attorney general, disputed that assertion.

“It’s not payback,” he said. “It’s not buying a vote. It’s none of those things. There’s no there, there, OK? It’s supporting someone that we’ve had a longstanding relationship with.”

Bigknife noted that the tribe gave money to Low’s congressional campaign before he cast his votes.  The tribe’s donated at least $9,900 to Low’s campaign, according to Open Secrets.

Low’s vote also exposed him to negative advertising. The card rooms paid for a billboard near the San Jose airport slamming him for siding with tribes at the potential expense of tax revenue for the community he represents.

The bill, which is awaiting Newsom’s signature or veto, would allow tribal governments to sue private card rooms over the tribes’ longstanding allegation that the gambling halls are illegally offering card games including blackjack and pai gow poker.

Tribes say California voters gave them the exclusive rights to host the disputed games. But because they’re sovereign governments, the tribes lack legal standing to sue the card rooms.

The fight over Senate Bill 549 was one of the most expensive and contentious of the two-year legislative session that concluded last week. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, many of them with large tribal casinos in their districts, pushed for the measure, while a smaller group of lawmakers with card rooms in their districts opposed it.

It followed a failed 2022 sports betting initiative that the tribes spent millions of dollars to sponsor and that included a similar provision that would have let the tribes sue.

As they sought to win over lawmakers, the opposing gambling interests donated at least $4.3 million to the 120 members of the Legislature since January 2023, according to the Digital Democracy database. The tribes were the bigger campaign spenders. That included giving $92,000 in the weeks leading up to a critical July vote to members of an obscure Assembly committee that regulates gambling.

Low sits on the committee, which was where he first voted against the wishes of the city of San Jose, one of the cities that stands to lose millions of dollars in revenue should the tribes prevail in their fight against the card rooms.

Low’s campaigns received at least $18,100 from tribes and $12,000 from card rooms since 2023, though a full accounting of any additional gambling donations Low may have received to his congressional account since July won’t be available until October.

Low is running against former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a fellow Democrat, in a contentious race for the congressional seat currently held by retiring U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo.

“We’re not surprised that Evan voted to harm his constituents in return for financial support, because he has a pattern of doing exactly that,” Liccardo’s campaign said in an emailed statement. Liccardo’s campaign accused Low of also accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from landlords and oil and power companies after voting in their favor.

Low campaign spokesman Nathan Click said in an email that the ads from the Viejas tribe were an independent expenditure that wasn’t associated with Low’s congressional campaign.

“On this and all other issues,” Click said, “Assemblymember Low is singularly focused on helping Californians and legislating in the best interest of his district and the state.”

Gambling dispute threatens California cities

The Viejas tribe bought the digital radio ads on Aug. 8, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

The ad buy came less than a month after Low cast a key vote to advance Senate Bill 549 from the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. The measure needed 12 “aye” votes from the 22 members of the committee to pass. It had 15. Low joined a couple of lawmakers who cast votes in favor of the bill despite having card rooms in their districts.

Last week, the measure passed the Senate and the Assembly with Low voting for it a second time.

Card rooms, cities across the state and the cities’ employee unions oppose the bill.

San Jose, in Low’s district, is the largest city in opposition. San Jose City Councilmember Sergio Jimenez told Low’s committee in July that the city receives $30 million each year from card rooms, enough to fund 150 police officers or 133 firefighters. Jimenez said that money’s in jeopardy if the tribes end up prevailing in court.

Low voted for the bill despite noting in the committee hearing that he had concerns “about the potential for the loss of revenue and also the loss of jobs.”

Card rooms attack Low

The radio ad calls Low “a trailblazer,” and “a fearless advocate” who has been “standing strong against discrimination and hate.”

“Evan has been a powerful voice fighting to make the streets and neighborhoods of San Jose safe for you and your family,” the ad says, noting that the Viejas tribe paid for it.

In its federal campaign filing, the tribe said it paid $60,000 to ALZA Strategies, Sacramento public relations firm, to produce the ad. Its president, Roger Salazar, declined to say on what stations the ads were running or provide other information.

Low, meanwhile, also was hit with negative advertising following his vote on the gambling bill. Late last month, the card room-funded Californians to Protect City Services and Local Jobs erected a billboard on Highway 101 near the San Jose International Airport.

“Ask Evan Low why he voted to cut public safety funding, kill over 32,000 jobs (and) hurt small businesses,” the billboard reads, urging voters to call his Assembly office and demand he vote against the gambling measure when it was considered on the Assembly floor last week. The billboard makes no mention of Low’s congressional campaign.

The billboard is misleading.

There’s no guarantee the tribes will prevail if they’re allowed to sue card rooms should Newsom sign the bill. A judge could side with the card rooms. The gambling halls have long argued that their card games are legal, and that state regulators have signed off on their business model.

Bigknife, the Viejas attorney general, said the billboard message was an example of why his tribe felt it was important to support Low and will continue to do so in his race for Congress.

“They attacked him with false representations that were absolutely untrue in an effort, obviously, to demean his character and demean whether he cares about his community and to … undercut what he’s trying to do in running for Congress,” Bigknife said.

In a statement, Becky Warren, spokesperson for the California Gaming Association, representing card rooms, didn’t address Low’s vote directly or the billboard.

“We are disappointed in legislators who voted for SB 549 and against the thousands of cardroom employees who are living and working in their communities,” she said. “By voting for SB 549, they also cast a vote against their cities and the essential services residents rely on. This is why SB 549 was opposed by public employee unions, firefighters, cities and cardrooms.”

Ryan Sabalow is a reporter with CalMatters. Hans Poschman and Thomas Gerrity, members of the CalMatters Digital Democracy team, contributed to this story.