Sports Betting Has the Energy Now!

by Gail Riecken City-County Statehouse Editor

SB 552 took surprising turns this past week as the Public Policy Committee passed the bill out with some big amendments. Here is the StatehouseFile article to read about the meeting. The article includes interesting comments on the massive 100 million dollars Chairman Rep. Ben Smaltz wants the Gary casino to pay for moving to a new location near a major northern interstate.  https://city-countyobserver.com/house-committee-passes-amendments-on-gaming-bill/

There are still opportunities to discuss points that need to be clarified, including two sections that should be of interest to us locally: the addition of veterans organizations and sports betting, and the dollar payment to Evansville if a boat license is moved to Vigo County.

The Committee amendment allows veterans organizations to have sports betting. There is one condition – they have to use their gaming revenue for their organization. I would like the amendment to clarify that a local veterans organization here in Evansville can use their monies to make renovations to the Coliseum. Major renovations are needed to that cherished building and this could be an opportunity.

And what about the payment to Evansville, if the boat license is moved? The Committee amendment reads the licensed owner, if the license is moved to Vigo County, must pay 6 million dollars to Evansville. The amendment goes on to say 80% of the payment must be used to reduce the property lease payments from the Tropicana Casino to the City of Evansville. My first concern is that I don’t find a payment schedule or due date for the subsidy in the amendment (which I think very important).

Second, I haven’t seen the casino contract with the City, so I don’t know how Rep Smaltz rationalized in his amendment the percentage of 80% being used to subsidize lease payments to the City. How is the other 20% to be used? As I said, I don’t know how our casino contract reads. Maybe someone does and can explain this.

But, hey, Rep Smaltz! Looks like you and the Committee have been burning the midnight oil to keep SB 552 alive and continue the discussion.

With about two weeks left before conference committees tear into any disputed bills, SB 552 has been assigned to Ways and Means. There, Committee members will talk in depth about any financial gains and losses and special interests will make their final arguments. The bill, if passed out of Ways and Means, will go to the House floor for a discussion and vote.

By Dionte Coleman
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS — There is zero chance the payday lending bill will advance in the form it passed the Senate, House Financial Institutions Chairman Woody Burton said after a lengthy hearing on the controversial bill.

But what will happen to Senate Bill 613 is unclear. Burton urged those who support the measure and the opponents, who want it dead, to seek compromise. The result could be a substantially amended bill that still keeps some form of payday lending, a bill reduced to just a summer study committee of the issue, or no bill at all.

Burton, R-Greenwood, authored Indiana’s original payday lending law 15 years ago. He said he “wanted supervision over those people (payday lenders) instead of doing it in parking lots. Even though it was interest rates of 350, 400 percent, but it was for two weeks.”

Burton, who opened Tuesday’s committee hearing with an acknowledgment that “I’d say this bill is a little controversial,” said afterward that he wants to ensure there is an emergency loan product that has government oversight, “but I’m not interested in giving away the store either.”

“I’m trying to come to some kind of fair and equitable piece of legislation,” he added. “If we can’t, then it won’t happen.”

SB 613 currently states that payday loan lenders can offer two loan options to borrowers, each with long-term implications and high annual percentage rates (APRs).

The first option would give borrowers an unsecured installment loan between $605 and $1,500 for six to 12 months with a maximum APR of 192 percent. The second option is directed towards small-dollar loans, which can provide up to $4,000 across four years with a maximum APR of 99 percent. Those allow someone to use their car title as security for the loan.

It also changes the definition of criminal loansharking. Indiana law states that lenders offering loans that carry more than 72 percent interest can be charged with a felony.

Sen. Andy Zay, the author of SB 613, told the House Financial Institutions committee that the bill offers choices for people with low credit scores who are targeted by the current payday loan system.

“We have to acknowledge that that marketplace exists, and the challenge is how are we going to regulate it, how are we going to take care of the bad actors in that agreement, how are we going to put each of those protections in place,” Zay said.

Brian Burdick, a lobbyist for lenders including Check Into Cash and Community Choice Financial, said the bill will help a growing subprime loan market.

“The folks that oppose this bill, I think to do it with a pure heart and just have a different point of view. I share that I wish people would go borrow with Chase and Old National (banks), but that’s not the way the world works,” he said. “So we need to have a solution. This problem does exist and you can’t just wish it away.”

He and Zay argued that the bill will give Hoosiers options to rebuild their credit so that they can go to a bank in the future for loans.

Opponents, though, argued that there are non-profit agencies to help people in need and that payday lenders only deepen the financial hole many find themselves in.

Steven Bramer Jr., 38-year-old disabled Iraq War veteran from Hammond, who spoke at a news conference earlier this month against SB 613, returned to the Statehouse Tuesday to urge lawmakers not to pass it.

Noting his five-year-old daughter asked him why he had to come to Indianapolis, Bramer said he hopes someday she can point to her dad as someone who stopped this bill from becoming law.

Bramer told the committee he fought addictions after getting back from Iraq to cope with the pain of his battle scars. After eight years of sobriety, he said, he found a new substance in payday loans.

“I am the Hoosier you are thinking about when you see those loans. I am a middle-class father who has to support his wife and four daughters. I am the Hoosier that will likely look at a loan like this at some point, but I’m here to tell you this bill is bad,” Bramer said.

Also opposing the bill were members of the Indiana American Legion, led by retired Brigadier Gen. James Bauerle. He cited a 2006 study by the federal Department of Defense that “predatory lending undermines military readiness, it harms the morale of the troops and their families and adds to the cost of fielding an all-volunteer fighting force.”

Bauerle said the defense department recommended a 36-percent cap on loans, including all fees.

“This was passed as the Military Lending Act by Congress to protect the active military service members and their families. It does not protect veterans, our Indiana National Guard members, or our reserves who reside in the state,” he said.

The committee has just under two weeks to see if the compromise Burton asked for can be reached.

FOOTNOTE: Dionte Coleman is an independent reporter, reporting for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.