Stay ahead of the curve as a political insider with deep policy analysis, daily briefings and policy-shaping tools.
Request a DemoHolcomb touts record-breaking capital investment numbers every year. They may not be the whole picture.
- At least one out of every three projects in which a company committed to making a capital investment in exchange for a Hoosier Business Investment tax credit didn’t meet their investment targets. The number could be closer to 56%.
- Oftentimes, companies received their full tax credit before they met the investment commitment numbers listed in their contracts, due to ambiguous contract language.
- The IEDC’s transparency portal was riddled with errors, from missing contracts to inaccurate investment numbers.
Editor’s note: This article is part of a State Affairs and Fox59/CBS4 series looking at how decisions get made at the Indiana Economic Development Corp. and how it impacts economic development in the state. The IEDC has faced increased scrutiny due to its involvement with Boone County’s LEAP Lebanon Innovation District and because two gubernatorial candidates are former IEDC leaders. Read our first story here.
Update Jan. 16: After State Affairs' story published, Secretary of Commerce David Rosenberg released the following statement:
"Despite weeks of communication and detailed explanation, this story fails to accurately convey how the HBI tool – or any economic tool for that matter – operates. HBI is typically just one incentive offered to a company committing to locate or grow in Indiana. HBI was only utilized as part of an incentive package in approximately 19% of deals in 2023.
"To be clear, not a single tax credit or dollar goes to a company without the company delivering on a committed investment to earn that tax credit or dollar. Truly the definition of performance-based incentives, as we’ve said many times. The implication there is taxpayer waste is false and intentionally misleading.
"Companies’ plans change regularly based on market conditions and other factors outside of the IEDC’s control. The incentives from the IEDC reflects these changes accordingly. Again, performance-based incentives."
Original: At the beginning of 2021, Gov. Eric Holcomb did what he does every year: He boasted about a “record-breaking year” for economic development in Indiana, despite COVID-19 throwing the state’s economy for a loop.
In a news release at the time, the Indiana Economic Development Corp. listed off company after company that committed to investing in Indiana, including Thor Industries, an RV manufacturer expected to invest more than $23 million and create 300 jobs.
That never happened. The project was canceled, according to the IEDC, before any tax credits were awarded. This time, though, there would be no press release or information on which companies followed through with their capital investments.
Holcomb and the IEDC routinely share statistics on job commitments and investment promises from companies before the projects begin, using that information to convince the Indiana General Assembly to dedicate a growing amount of tax dollars to economic development.
But the quasi-government agency is far less transparent when it comes to the outcomes of projects, often refusing to disclose companies’ total investment or job creation numbers.
An investigation by State Affairs and Fox59/CBS4 found that one of the IEDC’s economic development programs is falling short of its goals. At least one out of every three projects in which a company committed to making a capital investment in exchange for a Hoosier Business Investment tax credit didn’t meet its investment targets.
But even that statistic is a low estimate.
As many as 56% of the projects could fall into that category. But the public wouldn't know.
The IEDC routinely stops publicly tracking projects’ qualified investment amounts — money used for things such as new equipment, infrastructure improvements or new facilities in Indiana — before the companies meet their goals. The Hoosier Business Investment credit, or HBI, provides one of the only public glimpses into which companies are meeting their goals.
The investigation by State Affairs and Fox59/CBS4 also found:
- Companies in one out of five HBI contracts were able to receive the full tax credit before they met the investment commitment numbers listed in their contracts, due to ambiguous contract language.
- The IEDC’s public-facing transparency portal contained numerous mistakes, including consistently mislabeled statistics, eight missing contracts and 14 cases of inaccurate investment data— all of which make it challenging for the public to hold the state agency accountable.
- Had the companies we know fell short reached their investment goals, they would have invested an additional $1.2 billion of capital in Indiana. Again, that number could be higher when including the projects in which the IEDC stopped publicly tracking qualified investment.
And if these companies aren’t meeting their investment goals, they could be falling short in other areas, such as job creation.
Greg LeRoy regularly looks at contracts as executive director of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog organization that tracks subsidies for economic development. He found State Affairs and Fox59/CBS4’s findings concerning.
“Sharing projected investment numbers but not actual outcomes over time makes ‘disclosure’ hollow,” LeRoy said. “Anyone can add up their press releases and spin a happy story.”
Holcomb defended his decision to regularly share investment commitment numbers, rather than true investment numbers.
“Happy to supply you with our batting average and our track record and the businesses that first commit and then build,” Holcomb told reporters on Monday. “It is equally impressive, and I would be proud to tout that as well.”
Following his comments Monday, Holcomb's office did not provide the dollar amount of actual 2023 capital investment tied to any economic development projects when requested. And the IEDC, whose leadership is appointed by the governor, has also declined to provide any documentation showing the number of jobs created and amount of dollars invested on capital for each active project.
Almost all of that information is hidden by government leaders from Hoosier taxpayers in the name of protecting the business interests and trade secrets of the companies that receive public subsidies. A consequence of that secrecy, though, is that it's often impossible to confirm how many companies are meeting their obligations. The same people who brag about job creation are the ones tasked with oversight.
The IEDC did not grant State Affairs an interview on the topic despite multiple requests. Instead, Erin Sweitzer, a spokesperson for the agency, answered questions and defended the success of the IEDC through multiple emails.
“It’s all positive for the state since it’s a portion of new taxes generated,” Sweitzer said. “Pulling down, say 80%, of an award is not a bad thing or an indication of the program’s lack of success or utility — it’s tied directly to a company’s success, and as we know, there are a number of factors that could change or slow down a company’s plans, oftentimes outside of their control.”
Even if a company invests only a portion of what they expected, that’s still new investment in the state of Indiana.
Not meeting goals
In Holcomb’s final State of the State speech this week, he boasted that the IEDC had attracted a “jaw-dropping” $28.7 billion worth of committed capital investment from companies.
“That’s called ‘Indiana Momentum’ and we’ve got a lot more coming,” he said in his speech.
In press releases, speeches and meetings, Holcomb and the IEDC always share the investment commitment numbers — sometimes either omitting or not clarifying that the numbers are just that: loose commitments.
Democrats particularly have criticized what they view as a lack of transparency.
“We’re dealing with public dollars going to public companies, and there needs to be a level of accountability and scrutiny of those dollars,” said Rep. Greg Porter, an Indianapolis Democrat who serves on the State Budget Committee. “It is truly troubling that we hear of those commitment numbers, but we don’t see the real results.”
The State Affairs analysis showed that at least 98 of 277 HBI projects fell short of their investment goals. (Again, that number could be higher).
To determine the IEDC’s success rates, State Affairs pulled every HBI tax credit contract from a state transparency portal that started between 2012-2022 with an investment deadline of 2022 or earlier. Reporters then compared the “qualified investment commitment” listed in the contract to the “actual qualified investment” number on the portal itself.
Some companies missed the mark by a little, and others by millions of dollars. Some examples:
- In 2016, Oh Pharmaceutical Co. signed a contract committing to invest $18 million worth of qualified investment in Lake County. IEDC records show the company invested only $66,000 by the deadline.
- Toray Resin Company signed a 2020 contract promising nearly $8 million worth of qualified capital investment in Shelbyville. The company invested less than $500,000.
- In 2016, Nello Inc. committed to investing $12 million in South Bend. The company spent less than two thirds of that.
- Nice-Pak products signed a 2021 contract to invest $155 million-worth of qualified investment in Morgan County. The company spent 1/14th of that commitment.
None of those companies received their full tax credit because they didn’t reach their goals. Sweitzer said the state doesn’t view the rate of projects that don’t meet their goals as failures.
“Incentives awarded to companies are essentially the following: The company grows, generating new state sales tax, payroll withholdings taxes, and assessed value at the local level, and the IEDC issues a percentage of that new revenue back to the company,” Sweitzer said. “So that company’s growth creates a path for incentives, and that path only exists after the company performs. “
But other companies did receive the full tax credit before reaching their goals.
Discrepancy in the contract
Lehigh Cement Company located in small town Mitchell was supposed to spend $430 million on qualified investment. According to one part of the contract the state signed, the company shouldn’t have received a $1.1 million tax credit until the company reached that number.
“For the company to be eligible to earn the maximum credit amount … the company will make a qualified investment as defined in Indiana Code § 6-3.1-26-8 (“Qualified Investment”) of at least the Qualified Investment Commitment,” the contract states.
But, the company, now operating as Heidelberg Materials, got the full credit when the company hit near the $260 million mark — north of $160 million dollars less than expected.
So did more than 50 other HBI projects.
That’s because of a discrepancy in the contract, according to Indiana University contract law professor Michael Mattioli. Another part of the contract detailing how many dollars worth of tax credits a company gets per dollar of investment enables a company to get all of its money before it reaches its goals.
Put simply: The state only incentivizes a portion of a company’s investments, which means a company can fall short of its goal and still get the maximum credit.
"That discrepancy seems like it really erodes the incentive for a company to meet the [full] commitment if they know they're going to get the same amount of money for putting in less,” Mattioli said. “What does it mean to commit to spend $430 million if you’re going to receive the same amount of money in the end, if you spend half of that or less than half?”
LeRoy, likewise, said the contract language was unusual.
“This is supposedly on its face a performance based incentive which is supposed to be clean and easy to enforce. If the company falls short, well it gets a little haircut.” he said. “But the way this is structured with that wiggle language in there, it looks like we get back to the same squishy language problem.”
Once companies receive the maximum tax credit, the IEDC stops tracking the amount of qualified investment each company spends, which is why we may never know if more than 50 companies ever reached their investment goals. Sweitzer said the IEDC still tracks total capital investment, but that’s not the number tied to the tax credit, nor is it a number that’s made public.
She defended the contract language.
“IEDC incentive agreements accurately reflect the mutual understanding of the parties,” Sweitzer said. “It is reasonable that a third party who is not familiar with the intricacies of these programs and their associated agreements could misinterpret the substance and intent.”
(Story continues after graphic)
Transparency concerns
Some lawmakers have filed legislation in the past asking for more transparency from the IEDC. But in a legislature dominated by Republicans, the same party that controls the IEDC, those proposals haven’t moved.
“We just want to be accountable to Hoosiers,” said Porter, the Democrat who serves on the State Budget Committee. “We need to be good trustees, good stewards of taxpayer money.”
The way Democrats see it, there is a silver lining to the HBI credits: There’s some transparency.
In recent years the state legislature has given the IEDC more money with fewer restrictions. Last year, for example, the General Assembly approved a $500 million deal-closing fund that the IEDC can use as a sweetener to entice companies to expand in Indiana.
Unlike the HBI tax credit, there’s no specifications in state law regarding what a company must do to get that money.
Multiple bills concerning the IEDC have been filed this legislative session, including one from Senate Democratic Leader Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, requiring the state to disclose all records “related to taxpayer funded economic development incentives.”
But such legislation likely won’t go anywhere. Republican leadership haven’t shared the same concerns as Democrats, pointing to annual IEDC reports showing some statistics, such as the total number of jobs created by companies that contract with the IEDC.
“Happy to entertain information and suggestions around [increasing transparency],” Holcomb told the press, “but IEDC has been extraordinarily successful over the last few years of bringing a ton of great economic activity to Indiana. We don’t want to do anything that doesn’t support that.”
Contact Kaitlin Lange on X @kaitlin_lange or email her at [email protected].
Facebook @stateaffairsin
Instagram @stateaffairsin
LinkedIn @stateaffairs
Read this story for free.
Create AccountRead this story for free
By submitting your information, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy.
How this year’s race for lieutenant governor bucks tradition
The usually quiet process of selecting party nominees for lieutenant governor has taken on additional intrigue, as a controversial Republican outsider has challenged the status quo and the Democratic gubernatorial nominee is keeping her options open.
For years, parties have typically rubber-stamped their gubernatorial candidate’s choice for lieutenant governor.
Republican nominee Mike Braun in May announced his choice: state Rep. Julie McGuire, R-Indianapolis. But she will face a challenge from pastor Micah Beckwith, who has campaigned for the nomination for more than a year and claims to have secured support from nearly half of the majority he would need from the party’s 1,800 nominee-deciding delegates.
As Republicans have not lost a statewide election contest in more than a decade, whoever prevails for the lieutenant governor nomination at the June 15 GOP convention will likely become the state’s next number two.
Democrats appear to have a smoother road ahead of their July 13 convention, but gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick has not yet offered up a candidate and recently told State Affairs that “nothing’s off the table,” including selecting a Republican running mate.
Beckwith’s push
Beckwith, pastor of Life Church’s Noblesville campus, told State Affairs he would be campaigning daily for the next five weeks.
“We’re going to try to hit two counties in a day — one in the morning, one in the afternoon. We’ll just be going to county chairs and delegates and letting them ask all the questions,” he said.
He has run for formal office in the past, finishing third in the 2020 Republican primary for the state’s 5th Congressional District. The seat was ultimately captured by Rep. Victoria Spartz.
Beckwith is also a podcast host and may be best known for a tumultuous tenure on the Hamilton East Public Library Board of Trustees, where he pushed for an audit of children’s books. The unpopular plan ultimately collapsed, and the trustees who pushed for it soon left the board.
Beckwith went public with his lieutenant governor candidacy as he left the board and has since barnstormed the state hoping to court potential delegates. His website stresses he is seeking to give Republicans another choice.
Some 1,600 Republican delegates were selected in the May 7 primary election. Every county is represented by a different number of delegates relative to its population, with some fielding only a handful while larger counties field more than 100 each.
Most delegates are elected, but party leaders must sometimes fill vacancies to reach the 1,800 number.
Beckwith said some 400 of the 1,600 newly elected delegates had already pledged to support his bid.
Though Braun selected McGuire, the nominee said last week he welcomed competition for the spot as his running mate.
He told IndyStar: “I think that we’ll win that competition, and if by chance that doesn’t work, which I think is very slim, I’ll deal with it.”
McGuire fits recent trend
McGuire, a one-term legislator from Indianapolis, fits into a recent trend of Republican lieutenant governors: women with legislative backgrounds who represent a different geographical part of the state from their running mate.
Former Lt. Govs. Becky Skillman and Sue Ellspermann and outgoing Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch each fit that description.
McGuire defeated state Rep. John Jacob, a staunch anti-abortion activist who clashed with party leadership, in the Republican primary on her way to winning election to the Statehouse in 2022.
She authored one bill signed into law this past session centered on voiding parental rights over children sexually abused by a parent. She co-authored several education bills.
McGuire may be best known as the former author of a proposed bill to block a new tax district in downtown Indianapolis meant to pay for city services. A compromise was ultimately reached to allow the plan. McGuire removed herself as the bill’s author and voted against it.
Braun’s campaign and McGuire did not respond to requests for an interview.
Braun told IndyStar that he recruited McGuire due to her knowledge of health care policy and that he would campaign on her behalf with delegates.
Two state constitutional officers threw their support behind McGuire on Monday: state Treasurer Daniel Elliott and Secretary of State Diego Morales.
“Indiana Republican Convention delegates will have their choice as to who they will support, as do I,” Morales said in an X post. “I will be supporting Julie for Indiana lieutenant governor.”
“Delegates will have a choice at this convention, and I encourage them to choose Julie McGuire as our Republican nominee for lieutenant governor,” Elliott said in a similar post.
Not the first contested race
This year’s competition harks back to the ’90s, when Republican delegates last oversaw several contentious lieutenant governor nomination processes.
In 1996, GOP gubernatorial nominee and Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith left the selection entirely up to delegates.
Four years earlier, Attorney General Linley Pearson, the Republican nominee, nearly quit the convention over nominations for lieutenant governor and attorney general that he did not agree with.
Both tickets ended up losing in the general election.
In the ’80s, the GOP experimented with the idea of allowing voters to select the lieutenant governor nominee. John Mutz won a five-way primary in 1980 and eventually served two terms.
Mike McDaniel, a former state GOP chairman who served as Mutz’s campaign manager and chief of staff, said the party returned to the convention system in 1984 because leaders believed a lieutenant governor primary wasted campaign money.
McDaniel, a previous delegate of some 15 state and national conventions, supports the tradition of selecting the gubernatorial candidate’s choice for lieutenant governor.
“I think that’s important because the governor has to serve with this person for four or maybe eight years, and you want somebody you can trust, work with and be part of a team with to get things done,” McDaniel said.
McDaniel called Beckwith’s campaign, launched well before the gubernatorial race came into focus, “very, very unusual.” He said Braun will be the party’s new leader at the convention, so backing his choice is a sign of unity.
“If [Braun] has a preference, we should give him his preference,” McDaniel said.
Holcomb weighs in
More recently, delegates have shown themselves willing to break with the gubernatorial candidate on selections for other constitutional offices. In 2022, the convention chose Diego Morales over Gov. Eric Holcomb’s pick, Holli Sullivan, for the secretary of state nomination.
Holcomb, who briefly served as lieutenant governor under former Gov. Mike Pence, weighed in on this year’s competition on Tuesday, telling reporters that delegates should be the ultimate decision-makers on the nominee.
“And we have a history in Indiana of some tickets being blessed and some not,” he said. “And so that’s very instructive going into this convention and [it’s] incumbent upon the gubernatorial candidate to make their pitch to the convention delegates of their preference. And so I’ve been there, done that. And it worked out OK for me.”
What does a lieutenant governor do?
Whomever the voters select in November will have a role to play in the Legislature and within state agencies.
The lieutenant governor presides over the Indiana Senate and may cast a tiebreaker vote if needed. The position also fills in for the governor if the latter becomes incapacitated or dies.
The lieutenant governor oversees four state agencies: the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, the Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority, the Indiana Office of Tourism Development and the Indiana Office of Community & Rural Affairs.
Finally, the position chairs the Indiana Mental Health Roundtable, the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Task Force and the Civics Education Commission.
Democrats prepared to back McCormick’s pick
Delegates for the Indiana Democratic Party are preparing to support their nominee’s pick for governor, Chairman Mike Schmuhl told State Affairs.
“It really falls to [McCormick] to make that selection over the next few weeks,” Schmuhl said, adding that both parties have typically backed the governor’s selection and that Republicans are “upending tradition” with Beckwith’s candidacy.
“We really do envision it as the pick of the gubernatorial nominee,” he said. “Not only is it a convention pick, but it’s also who the governor wants as a governing partner if elected. It’s a pretty serious responsibility.”
Asked about McCormick possibly backing a Republican for the Democratic lieutenant governor nomination, Schmuhl said he could not comment on her process directly.
“I think my recommendation is when you’re picking someone for this spot, you want to find somebody who expands your appeal and your campaign’s reach,” Schmuhl said, “and who doesn’t limit you or harm you in any way.”
Contact Rory Appleton on X at @roryehappleton or email him at [email protected].
Indiana appeals court chief judge on AI, mental health, and the state’s dwindling number of lawyers
Many Hoosiers may be familiar with their local courts or hear about the opinions of the Indiana Supreme Court, but a middle tier in the state’s judiciary system shapes justice through some 2,000 rulings a year.
The 15 judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals dole out opinions on everything from murder and fraud to civil and child welfare cases. Every Hoosier has the right to appeal a conviction or ruling, and the Court of Appeals, the second-highest court in the state, takes up each case sent its way.
Chief Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. has analyzed thousands of cases since being appointed by Gov. Mike Pence in 2015. Prior to that, he spent 15 years as an elected judge in Marion County.
Altice sat down with State Affairs for a discussion on the ins and outs of his court, how changes in technology and mental health care have impacted his work and what he sees as a major problem facing the nation’s judicial system.
This conversation has been edited for clarity, brevity and length.
Q. What sort of cases does the Court of Appeals hear?
A. We hear really everything except death penalty cases. If there’s a death penalty case, it goes straight to the [state] Supreme Court. Otherwise, we get it.
I’ve had to publish an opinion on a traffic court case. About 65% of our cases are criminal. Every, everything under the sun: murders, rapes, robberies, child molestation.
Then there are civil cases. We do medical malpractice suits, traffic accidents, you name it. Complex business litigation? Our court was involved.
Q. How does the appeals process work? There’s not a new trial, right?
A. I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you got a murder case and the defendant gets convicted and gets 65 years, which is the max for a murder conviction. Everybody in the state of Indiana has got an automatic right to appeal. Not everybody takes that right, but most criminal defendants do.
Somebody will write his brief for him. That attorney will find three issues that they think will result in a new trial if we rule in their favor. That’s really what the appellate process is: Are the errors committed at the trial court level significant enough to warrant a new trial?
And then the attorney general in the criminal cases will write a brief in opposition, then the appellant or the defendant can file a reply brief as well.
We sit and read transcripts and their briefs and do our own research and come to a decision as to whether or not there was error at the trial court level that warrants a new trial.
Q. How many of the 2,000 cases your court receives a year, how many are taken up by the Indiana Supreme Court?
A. It is rare. You start with the proposition that trial courts throughout the state are doing about 2+ million cases a year. That’s everything. We do 2,000 opinions a year. I think the Supreme Court writes about 60 opinions a year. That’s what their taking of ours.
But we’re considered an error-correcting court, whereas that’s really not their role. Their role is more jurisprudential. It’s “should we look at changing in this regard or changing precedent.”
It’s really an inverse pyramid, with the trial courts, I always say, doing the heavy lifting.
Our turnaround time is very quick. It’s about three months. Some states require oral arguments in every single case, but we don’t.
If you ask for an oral argument, we will sometimes grant that. We do a lot of oral arguments, but most of our oral arguments are traveling oral arguments. We travel all over the state and do live arguments. And we do those in front of high schools, small colleges, bigger schools.
We answer questions or ask questions like we normally would do, and then once we’re finished, then we have a question and answer session with the students.
Q. One thing we heard about at the State of the Judiciary is there’s an attorney shortage in the state, particularly in rural areas. How has that affected your work?
A. I think we’re seeing more pro se litigants, people representing themselves, and that can be difficult because we hold them to the same standard that we would hold a lawyer to. It can be really difficult for them. So in that regard, it has hurt.
We’ll go to traveling oral arguments in some rural county, and the bar association will host a lunch for us. We’ll go and there’ll be six lawyers in the room and I’ll say to somebody, “So how many people are in the bar?” And they’ll say, “Well, you’re looking at it.”
That access to justice is a really difficult thing that I think the state of Indiana is dealing with now. The Supreme Court has just set up a task force to look into how we can improve that. I believe law schools are looking at incentivizing young kids to go practice in rural areas.
It’s a real issue. I think a lot of it stems from the low bar passage rate of the last 10+ years. It’ll be interesting to see what the task force thinks.
Q. How has technology impacted the court?
A. Technology has been huge. All our work is done online now. The briefs are filed online.
The technology that we have to keep an eye on, and we’re already looking at, is artificial intelligence. What impact is that going to have on the courts, especially our courts?
You can punch a button and write an opinion. It’s probably not going to be very good, but as technology improves, it’s going to be. We’re kind of leery of that.
But at the same time, from a research standpoint, it’s been a very valuable tool. We’ve been using AI in that regard for researching for some time now, with Westlaw and Lexus as they’ve come out with those kinds of tools.
Q. There have been changes in how the world views mental health. How has that impacted the court?
A. I see it primarily in the sentencing arena. Before every defendant is sentenced by a trial court, a pre-sentence investigation is prepared on them. And so that’s where you see a lot of that because it discusses their entire background, and the number of people with mental health issues coming through has really increased greatly.
I think the pandemic had a lot to do with that as well. But again, the mental health issues are very much creeping into the system, and one of the things that we’re constantly working on trying to be aware of and trying to, to the extent we can with alternatives to incarceration, assist people.
Q. Are there any other challenges facing today’s judiciary?
A. I guess not necessarily my court, but courts in general. It appears to me that Congress is broken. They’re not passing laws.
So, what are we doing? We have to rely on the other two branches of government to kind of take up the slack, and that’s why you’re seeing tons of executive orders.
That’s not traditionally their job, and then you’re seeing the courts being called upon to determine whether or not those regulations are enforceable.
I see that as a long-term problem that we’ve got to get corrected.
Contact Rory Appleton on X at @roryehappleton or email him at [email protected].
How McCormick, Braun view abortion, taxes and other key issues
A Democrat-turned-Republican and Republican-turned-Democrat will soon face off in the race to become Indiana’s next governor.
Sen. Mike Braun, who voted as a Democrat prior to 2012, captured the Republican nomination in Tuesday’s primary. Jennifer McCormick, formerly a Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, will represent the Democrats.
Voters will decide the state’s next chief executive in November.
A State Affairs analysis of the candidates’ campaign platforms and public statements found key differences — and a few similarities — in their planned approaches to a variety of issues impacting Hoosier voters.
Here is how they match up.
Abortion
Braun: As a senator, Braun has long supported abortion restrictions.
In 2020, he called for the Supreme Court to re-examine Roe v. Wade.
In 2023, he proposed federal legislation that would have required parental notification before any unemancipated minor could seek an abortion. He said at the time: “Hoosiers put their trust in me to stand up for the unborn, and that’s what I’ve been proud to do every day in the Senate.”
He has since signaled support for the state’s abortion ban. His platform reads: “State lawmakers must work to ensure the gains we have made to protect life are secured and strengthened.”
McCormick: In a Tuesday interview with State Affairs, McCormick said her candidacy represented a referendum on reproductive rights.
“I’m going to fight to restore those rights under any authority I can, working in a bipartisan fashion, using our committees, board and our agencies. I also know, too, what everybody’s fear is: that they’re [Republicans] not going to restore those rights and will take [restrictions] further.”
From her platform: “Indiana’s Republican-led extreme abortion ban has taken away the right of women to make deeply personal decisions regarding their own health care.”
Marijuana
Braun: At a March 26 Republican primary debate, Braun suggested an openness to legalizing medicinal marijuana.
“It’s gonna hit all of us. I’m gonna listen to law enforcement — they have to put up with the brunt of it,” he said. “Medical marijuana is where I think the case is best made that maybe something needs to change. But I’ll take my cue from law enforcement there as well. … I hear a lot of input where [medical marijuana is] helpful, and I think that you need to listen and see what makes sense.”
McCormick: The Democrat’s platform also addresses medical marijuana legalization, while speculating on possible recreational use.
“We will fight for the legalization of medical marijuana as a source of state revenue established on a well-regulated marketplace and monitored by a Cannabis Task Force in order to study the issues, opportunities and potential obstructions associated with recreational marijuana legalization.”
McCormick said she would also support expunging low-level marijuana-related convictions.
Taxes
Braun: At a March 19 National Federation of Independent Business forum, Braun said the state’s property tax system “went out of whack because it couldn’t respond to inflation like we’ve never seen before.”
“The way you finance any lower taxes would be to bank on the government being run more efficiently,” he said.
His platform also calls for government spending cuts to finance lower taxes: “Reducing the size of government is the key to cutting taxes, and Mike Braun will work through every state agency to find ways to save money while delivering high-quality services to taxpayers.”
McCormick: McCormick also spoke about taxes at the March 19 forum.
“I agree with a revamp of our taxing system,” she said. “But also it’s about not just how we’re getting our revenue, it’s about our expenditures. Yes, we need to fix our gas tax. Yes, we need to look at the income tax. But here’s the thing: There are hidden taxes we’re not having a conversation about.”
Her platform also references the possibility of combining state agencies as a way to save money.
Education
Braun: In his platform, Braun supports broadening school choice and parental rights.
“As a former school board member, Mike Braun knows parents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s education and every family, regardless of income or zip code, should be able to enroll in a school of their choice and pursue a curriculum that prepares them for a career, college or the military,” the platform reads.
Braun also pledged to ensure critical race theory and discussions about gender are banned in public schools.
McCormick: Education is one of McCormick’s primary issues, according to her platform.
She calls for the elimination of statewide testing, increased early childhood reading and child care options and a minimum base salary of $60,000 for all K-12 teachers.
McCormick also addresses the state’s school choice movement.
“We will call for a pause in the expansion of school privatization efforts while requiring fiscal and academic accountability and transparency for all of Indiana schools that receive public tax dollars,” her platform reads.
U.S.-Mexico border
Braun: Braun’s television ads have touched on border security, and his platform calls for increased focus on the area.
“Joe Biden and the left have created a humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border,” the platform reads. “As governor, Mike will continue to support and enact the America First policies that were working. Otherwise, every town will become a border town.”
McCormick: McCormick’s border-related plans are more focused on facilitating legal immigration.
“We will work with local, state and federal officials in supporting an immigrant system that creates a safe, timely, orderly and humane pathway for those seeking legal immigration while keeping our communities and those responsible for border security safe,” her platform reads.
Contact Rory Appleton on X at @roryehappleton or email him at [email protected].
Spartz, Shreve, Stutzman win Republican congressional primaries
A central Indiana congresswoman successfully fought off eight primary challengers, while crowded races for three other Republican-leaning congressional districts began to clear in Tuesday’s primary election. And in northeastern Indiana, a former congressman held on in a tight race as he seeks to return to Congress. All of the state’s nine U.S. House of Representatives …