Pay to Play Politics? Congresswoman Lofgren’s Alleged Strong-Arm Tactics on Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

 As FR looks further into the pivotal congressional race in California’s 18 district, we have sought comment from the incumbent, Zoe Lofgren, the ingrained Washington insider who was first elected in the late 20th century.

A call to her San Jose district office yielded nothing more than a referral to write to Ally Kehoe (ally@zoelofgren.com,)

Our correspondent Dick LaFontaine did the honors.

He wrote:

Ally;

I spoke to the Congresswoman’s District Office in San Jose, and they directed me to you for press comment.

I am an investigative journalist helping to research an article on Native American affairs. I was wondering about Congresswoman Lofgren’s position on the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.

The Congresswoman has familiarity with the Tribe from her days on Board of County Supervisors. She was there when anthropologists tried to dig up sacred burial grounds without the Tribe’s permission.

In 2002, Lofgren proudly demanded justice for the Muwekma Ohlone people on the floor of the House of Representatives:

• “I proudly support the long struggle of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe as they continue to seek justice and to finally, and without further delay, achieve their goal of their reaffirmation of their tribal status by the federal government. This process has dragged on long enough. I hope that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior will do the right thing and act positively to grant the Muwekma Ohlone tribe their rights as a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe. … To do anything else is to deny this tribe justice. They have waited patiently and should not have to wait any longer.”

But recently, Congresswoman Lofgren has not supported the Muwekma Ohlone’s claims with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), who have excluded the Tribe from the list of federally recognized tribes.

Does the Congresswoman agree that Congress and the federal government have previously recognized the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, prior to 1978?

As the Congresswoman knows, the Burea of Indian Affairs recognizes approximately 575 Tribal entities in the lower United States. Roughly one fifth are located within the State of California. These sovereignties are eligible for funding and services due to their status as Indian Tribes.

The Muwekma Ohlone have a robust, established, and documented history.

Their qualifications and documentation are on par with or exceed some of the current federally recognized tribes, including those from the State of California. Does the Congresswoman have any specific issues with the Muwekma Ohlone’s qualifications and documentation for BIA recognition?

Does the Congresswoman believe the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a mistake in 1978 when it excluded the Muwekma Ohlone from the list of federally recognized tribes?

Did the Congresswoman believe the BIA was mistaken in 2002 when she made her comments on the House floor?

Does the Congresswoman still believe the BIA is mistaken? If not, why not?

News reports say that in January, Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Jimmy Panetta, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and the Congresswoman went to Rep. Anna Eshoo’s office on the Hill and had a closed door meeting with Muwekma Ohlone Tribal Chairwoman Charlene Nijmeh on the Tribe’s issues with BIA list inclusion and recognition. Can the Congresswoman confirm that meeting occurred? Can she confirm the attendees?

There are allegations that at the meeting, Tribal Chairwoman Nijmeh was the recipient of an attempted “strong-arm.” The claim is that Tribal Recognition with the BIA would be “Pay to Play” and require concessions including that the Tribe cede sovereign lands and covenant not engage in the casino/gambling trade. Does the Congresswoman have any response?

There are additional allegations that the Congresswoman Lofren is insensitive to latent and systemic racism, colonialism, and the history of genocide faced by indigenous peoples. Does the Congresswoman have any response?

Does the Congresswoman support BIA recognition of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe?

Is there any other information or context we should be aware of in our reporting?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Regards,

Dick LaFontaine

Investigative Journalist