Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, argues passionately against a provision adding oversight to gambling regulators’ budget requests, on Friday, March 8. Photo by Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

By Niki Kelly
Indiana Capital Chronicle

INDIANA — A feud between the General Assembly and the Indiana Gaming Commission escalated late Friday, March 8, when lawmakers approved language blocking the commission from getting more money without their approval.

It also directs casino fines and penalty money to the state’s coffers, instead of the agency’s.

“I think this is an attempt to strangle an effective regulatory agency on behalf of an industry that right now is embroiled in scandal,” said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington. “And I think it’s outrageous for this bill to be moving forward.”

Another member said Republicans are “defunding the gaming police.”

The House approved the bill 57-39 and the Senate 45-2.

The language says the commission’s budget cannot be augmented by the state budget agency, state board of finance or any other source without approval from the State Budget Committee.

That committee is made up of four voting lawmakers and the state budget director.

Under current law, augmentation — or increased spending authorization — can be approved by the governor’s administration without legislative involvement.

The move comes after Sen. Chris Garten, R-Charlestown, had a public spat with the commission over the interim. He accused the agency of being too aggressive in regulating casinos and imposing fines for violations.

Pierce pointed out one former lawmaker is currently headed to prison for his involvement in a casino bribery scandal and legislative leaders said gaming legislation would be paused this year.

But this language, which passed the Senate but was never heard by the full Indiana House, was added back into Senate Bill 256 in a final conference committee report.

Pierce argued that it doesn’t make sense to take flexibility away from a commission charged with regulating the gaming industry.

“This is going to create an opportunity for corruption,” he said.

But Rep. Ben Smaltz, chairman of the House Rules Committee, said what Pierce dubbed “choking or strangling” the agency, he sees as “additional oversight.”

“I don’t see that this is going to make it so the industry is going to be able to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes,” he added.

Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, asked Rep. Jeff Thompson – author of the bill – why the language was necessary for one specific agency.

“Is there reason for us to not trust the agency is appropriately doing enforcement actions?” he asked.

Thompson, R-Lizton, said he thinks it’s appropriate for legislators to have oversight “with the kind of dollars they receive.”

He added that the budget committee meets around every 60 days, and that timeline is agile enough if the commission needs to ask for more money for enforcement.