Way? No way, critics say of the Republican House candidate

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

LD15 Republican House candidate Michael Way is seeking to dismiss the complaint against him, alleging he isn’t eligible to hold public office. Way’s attorney Andrew Gould filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Monday and argued the plaintiff, Deborah Kirkland, a GOP precinct committeewoman in LD15, didn’t comply with the statutory filing deadline of April 15 applicable to her challenge. That date marked 10 days after the final day candidates could file nomination papers and petitions. The complaint was filed on Aug. 19, 126 days after the deadline. Gould’s motion also states the complaint was erroneously filed under a statute that is specific to “members of the legislature.” Way has not yet been elected to office. The complaint also requests a court order if Way is elected to office and Gould wrote in his motion that the claim is not ripe. “This action is manifestly improper. Way should not be forced to expend legal resources defending a lawsuit that should never have been brought,” Gould wrote. Kirkland’s complaint alleges Way hasn’t resided in LD15 for three uninterrupted years that would make him eligible to run for office and provided documents from the North Carolina State Board of Elections showing that he voted in North Carolina as of November 2022. Peter Anello, endorsed by J. Parker, ran with Hoffman and Carter for the seat but lost to Way in the primary election. Martinez said in a statement that Way meets the requirements to appear on the ballot. “I will not stand for baseless accusations against Republicans at any time,” Martinez said in a statement. “Furthermore, as a Republican Party, we need to be unified and supportive to continue the strong leadership Republicans provide for the State of Arizona.” Way has called the claims against him a “false narrative” pushed by “far left” Arizona influencers and the “Fake News Media.” He states he’s lived in Arizona for 15 years. A railbird previously told our reporter some Republicans are concerned Democrats could challenge the seat if he wins in November. “Democrats have ZERO chance of beating me at the ballot box in November. They are instead resorting to writing fan fiction in an effort to gaslight Democrat donors to believe this seat is somehow in play,” Way wrote in a post on Facebook responding to an article published by The Arizona Republic about his candidacy. 

Fight over Hobbs’ director nominations move ends with a whimper

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

Final judgment in the legal fight over Hobbs’ director nominations workaround incorporated a provision holding neither the latest judgment nor the initial ruling speak to the validity or legality of the delegation of authority to the executive deputy directors nor the actions taken by deputy directors. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney,a Ducey appointee, signed off on a final order this morning bringing to an end months-long litigation over whether Hobbs’ decision to pull director nominations given political clashes with DINO chair Hoffman was legal. In a June ruling, Blaney found Hobbs “unilaterally appointed de facto directors … without the consent of the Senate in violation of Arizona law” and found state law “precludes the Governor from leaving these director positions vacant and mandates that the Governor actually nominate directors to positions pursuant to the procedures and according to the deadlines contained in statute.” Blaney declined to issue mandamus or injunctive relief and instead left it to the parties to reach an agreement. Attorneys for Hobbs and the Senate submitted an initial stipulation on August 12, which held that Hobbs failed to comply with the requirements in statute for agency director positions and required her to submit a new round of nominations by the first week of the next legislative session at which a new one-year timeframe for confirmations would start. Another provision held that the new judgment would supersede the June ruling, and neither the initial ruling or the final judgment should be considered “as a ruling on the validity or legality of the appointment of Executive Deputy Directors for the agencies at issue or any actions taken by those deputy directors.” The final judgment, okayed by Blaney Tuesday, holds the same but irons out the language and clarifies the Senate “did not seek relief as to either issue” in its initial complaint or motion for summary judgment. The judgment holds, too, that the “Governor and Senate reached a mutually acceptable agreement.” 

Senate to consider state’s ‘Executive Deputy Directors’ next session

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

Thirteen “executive deputy directors” will likely face the Senate Committee on Director Nominations next session. Those executive deputy directors include heads of the Department of Housing, the Department of Gaming and the Department of Child Safety. The other deputy directors are Elizabeth Alvarado-Thorson of the Department of Administration; Angie Rodgers of the Department of Economic Security; Karen Peters of the Department of Environmental Quality; Carmen Heredia of the Health Care Cost Containment System; David Lujan of DCS; Jackie Johnson of the Department of Gaming; Joan Serviss of the Department of Housing; Barbara Richardson of the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions; Dana Allmond of the Department of Veterans’ Services; Alec Esteban Thomson of the Arizona Lottery; Cynthia Zwick of the Residential Utility Consumer Office; Lisa Urias of the Office of Tourism; and Robyn Sahid of the State Land Department. All have served as executive deputy directors since September 2023. A spokesperson for Hobbs’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the nominations. Hobbs has until the first week of next year’s legislative session to send new nominations for the 13 deputy directors, and the Senate will have one year to confirm them. The committee is guaranteed to see at least one new member in 2025 with Kerr not running for reelection, but the makeup of the group will largely be determined by November’s election. “We’re going to have a new Legislature in January,” Hobbs told reporters earlier this month. “What I can tell you is that the agreement we made is between the current president and regardless of who controls the Senate, leadership can change.”

Auditor General accuses Santa Cruz County treasurer of stealing nearly $40 million

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

A state Auditor General report published Tuesday alleges former Santa Cruz County Treasurer Elizabeth Gutfahr embezzled more than $39 million from the county over a 10-year period. The report further supports a lawsuit filed by the county against Gutfahr in August. During those 10 years, Gutfahr allegedly made at least 182 unauthorized wire transfers from the county treasurer’s office to two business bank accounts connected to her, according to the Auditor General’s report. It took about 10 years for bank anti-money laundering teams to flag Gutfahr’s activity with a report of 12 wire transfers totaling more than $4 million on April 3. Auditors also noted employees in the treasurer’s office admitted to getting personal financial help or gifts from Gutfahr. One employee received a $6,000 “loan” for a new air conditioner. Another employee told auditors Gutfahr had paid their personal bills. Auditors also allege Gutfahr attempted to cover up the embezzling by providing the county’s financial consultant and auditors with fake investment statements. “The actions detailed in the Arizona Auditor General’s report are deeply disturbing and represent a significant betrayal of public trust. This case would stand as one of the worst instances of county financial misconduct in Arizona’s history, underscoring the need for more stringent oversight and accountability in the management of public resources,” JLAC Chairman Matt Gress said in a statement. Gress also said he plans to introduce legislation next session that will expand the authority of the auditor general’s office to give the office independent access to financial institution records and is considering another bill that would require treasurers to meet specific training requirements. “We owe it to the citizens of Arizona to protect their hard-earned tax dollars from fraud and corruption by arming the Arizona Auditor General with additional tools to uncover financial misconduct,” Gress said.

Lawmakers upset over destroyed documents in KanCare bid process

Posted on by Bryan Richardson

“Concerning,” “disturbing” and “shocking” were adjectives that lawmakers used to highlight their feelings about the destruction of some KanCare evaluation documents.

The Bethell Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Services and KanCare Oversight on Tuesday reviewed the recent selection of contractors for Kansas’ Medicaid program as a judge continues to ponder whether to put the entire process on hold.

In May, Kansas selected Sunflower Health Plan, UnitedHealthcare Community Plan and Healthy Blue as the KanCare managed care organizations starting Jan. 1, 2025.

Last month, Aetna Better Health sued Kansas over the procurement process after the state rejected its and CareSource Kansas’ protests of the decision.

Jane Brown, president and CEO of Aetna Better Health, told the committee a big point of contention was the destruction of records that could’ve helped with the auditing process. She likened it to post-election audits to check vote totals.

“You should be able to verify or validate in some way or fashion that the final count is accurate,” she said. “Unfortunately, we can’t do that.”

Attorneys for state agencies involved in the litigation referred to the documents as “individual evaluation notes.”

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment confirmed to Mercer, a consulting firm used for the bid process, that those documents were destroyed March 7 based on the consultant’s recommendation, according to emails records Aetna requested.

Rep. Will Carpenter, R-El Dorado, said his issue isn’t related to the KanCare contractors the state selected. He said transparency issues marred the process.

“This is about a fair process, and that is what disturbs me, and rightly so,” he said.

KDHE General Counsel Brian Vazquez, responding to a question from Sen. Molly Baumgardner, said he wasn’t consulted about whether the documents should be destroyed.

Baumgardner, R-Louisburg, said it’s “very concerning” the state would move to destroy documents without attorney consultation considering the previous procurement process in 2018 led to a lawsuit.

“It seemed reckless and careless,” she said.

Sen. Virgil Peck, R-Havana, and Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, backed Baumgardner’s line of thinking. Peck said it was “amazing” that any document was destroyed based on previous history.

“I’m a lot shocked because of what we have been told as legislators,” he said, “to make certain that we either do not put anything in writing or, if we do, that we maintain a record.”

Ballard said her employer, the University of Kansas, requires employees to maintain notes for three years if they receive grants in case of a review. She said employees also keep those documents for hiring and scholarship decisions the university makes.

“Transparency is an issue for me in this,” she said. “You’ve answered all of the questions I have, yet I feel very uneasy about the process.”

Fixing the process

The committee made clear it didn’t want another procurement process with destroyed documents.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, said the committee would discuss at its October meeting a proposal for the upcoming legislative session to address the issue.

“The destruction of documents is what’s really raised a whole lot of questions,” the committee chair said. “I don’t care if it’s a Republican governor or a Democrat governor. It’s irrelevant to me.”

Sen. Pat Pettey, D-Kansas City, and Rep. Susan Ruiz, D-Shawnee, expressed concerns about a bill reaching further than what the committee might intend.

“I’m just concerned if we look at a piece of legislation that has a broad implication to any kind of RFP [request for proposal] that any department deals with,” Pettey said.

Ruiz asked if there’s a way to make a change without going through the legislative process, which opens up the possibility of procurements becoming “even more complicated.”

While Sen. Renee Erickson, R-Wichita, agreed that fixing the issue is important, she bluntly expressed her frustration with potentially passing a law for a matter  she believes should be “common sense,” saying, “I shouldn’t have to tell my kids not to poop in the yard.”

The push to change the process would accomplish one of Aetna’s goals.

Aetna’s Brown told State Affairs her motivation was for the committee to “see what we see” concerning process flaws and take action to refine the rules during next year’s session. Lawmakers have a responsibility to ensure “good, clean and honest processes” are in place, she said.

“My hope is that in any future procurements that happen after this, that the process is much more organized, that it’s cleaner and that it is free from this sort of taint or last-minute decision-making, behind-the-scenes stuff,” Brown said.

Latest on court case

Shawnee County District Court Judge Thomas Luedke on Monday ruled that Healthy Blue, Sunflower and United can intervene in Aetna’s lawsuit. But a ruling on the company’s injunction request is still pending.

At a hearing last week, Aetna withdrew its opposition to the parties entering the case. The company wants the court to rule that it would have been one of the top three bidders “without the state’s errors.”

Brown said the judge mentioned at the hearing that the ruling would come “very soon.” She said she expects an injunction ruling before the next hearing on Sept. 17.

If the court doesn’t make Kansas award Aetna one of the three contracts, the company requested the state either award a fourth contract or re-bid the KanCare contracts. Aetna said it would also accept “other relief as this Court deems just and proper.”

Aetna’s lawsuit focuses on Healthy Blue, which the state selected in a tiebreaker after both companies scored 522 out of a possible 1,000.

The company said in court filings the state should have disqualified Healthy Blue for failing to disclose it hired the former Kansas Medicaid director and for its previous performance under the name Amerigroup Kansas.

Aetna replaced Amerigroup as a KanCare contractor in 2018 after performance issues. In 2021, Amerigroup Kansas Inc. changed its name to Community Care Health Plan of Kansas Inc. — Healthy Blue’s official business name.

Bryan Richardson is the managing editor at State Affairs Pro Kansas/Hawver’s Capitol Report. Reach him at [email protected] or on X @RichInNews.

Panel dismisses ethics complaint against Lake, Finchem attorneys

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

The state presiding disciplinary panel dismissed a complaint filed against attorneys Kurt Olsen and Andrew Parker while representing Lake and Finchem in a 2022 federal lawsuit seeking to outlaw electronic voting systems. Parker and Olsen faced five alleged violations of ethics rules requiring competence, diligence, meritorious claims and contention plus barring conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice for alleged missteps in representing then gubernatorial candidate Lake and SoS candidate Finchem in a lawsuit against then-SoS Hobbs and the Maricopa and Pima Boards of Supervisors. The litigation had the stated goal of outlawing voting machines and tabulation machines in the 2022 election given a threat of manipulation or intrusion, though the ethical complaint brought by the Arizona Bar Association did not hinge on the key claim in the suit. The Bar instead alleged ethical misconduct by Parker and Olsen in the initial complaint and in a motion for preliminary injunction. In the initial complaint, the Bar claimed the two had relied on dissimilar caselaw, improperly cited findings related to voting machine connectivity to the internet, advanced an ill-fated standing claim and selectively included information on testing of electronic voting systems. And in the motion for preliminary injunction, the Bar claimed Parker and Olsen filed the motion for preliminary injunction too close to the 2022 election, lacked a good faith basis to claim the requested relief, a ban on all electronic voting systems, would “cause little if any harms to the defendants,” and failed to cite a case in addressing the standard for mandatory injunctive relief. Parker and Olsen sat for a three-day hearing in June in front of the disciplinary panel. In an order Monday, presiding disciplinary judge Margaret Downie, joined by attorney member Ralph Wexler and public member Randall Clark, dismissed the State Bar’s complaint filed against Parker and Olsen in its entirety. The panel found Parker and Olsen demonstrated competence and “collectively possessed the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary” to take on the case. As for the case itself, the panel cited the Arizona Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arizona Republican Party v Richer, which guides against sanctioning lawyers for bringing “‘debatable, long-shot complaints” with an eye toward election cases. The panel found “(t)here is no reason to believe our Supreme Court would apply a different or lesser standard in the context of attorney disciplinary proceedings.” In concluding the found, “Retrospective scrutiny of any complex litigation may reveal some measure of imprecision, legal arguments fairly characterized as long shots, puffery in advocacy, and reliance on authorities that are distinguishable in some respects. Such is the case here.”  The State Bar did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Parker told our reporter the ruling “entirely vindicates the work that we did” and added he thought the complaint should not have been brought in the first place. “Intimidation and the weaponization of state agencies has the effect of deterring lawyers from asserting far-reaching and sometimes novel legal arguments that challenge current popular positions,” Parker said in an emailed statement. “They must be rejected, as this decision does.  Fundamental principles of our justice system were protected and reinforced today.”

Tyson questions pursuit of grant funding for software to assist Kansans with HIV

Posted on by Matt Resnick

Sen. Caryn Tyson on Tuesday questioned the pursuit of federal grant funding for upgraded claims processing software designed to better assist Kansans living with HIV.

Tyson, R-Parker, said her concerns involved the future cost associated with the software rather the system itself.

Tyson’s line of questioning came during a presentation delivered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment at a meeting convened by the Joint Committee on Information Technology. 

The new software system includes a client database and automated medical claim processing module, upgrading its outdated setup, according to the agency’s chief information officer, Bob Doane. 

“The goal of the project is to improve the lives of Kansans with HIV,” Doane said of the federally funded dollars tied to the Ryan White Part B Program.

According to the agency’s website, the program is designed to assist individuals with medical case management services, “providing clients with linkages to health, social and wrap-around services from key access points across Kansas.” Some of those services include dental care, medical case management, medications through the statewide AIDS Drug Assistance Program, mental health and substance use services through the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS  program and primary care services.

The program was implemented in August 2023 and  runs through July 2026, but the current software is lacking, according to Doane. The new client service database, Doane said, is equipped with additional capabilities such as mobile access, automated service reminders, geographic tracking technology, advanced reporting and enhanced security. 

Doane added that software upgrades are vital to attracting new health care providers, specifically in rural areas of the state.

“If we cannot attract more providers, we will not be able to improve patient access to treatments,” Doane said. “We could lose federal funding if this project is not completed.”

Tyson took issue with the project cost, which checks in at $2.26 million, plus an additional $400,000 annually for software maintenance. Doane indicated that both figures would be fully covered by federal grant funding and that there’s a “limited time” grant of $6 million that could be used for the project. 

“We all know that this may be the project cost, but that’s not the system cost, necessarily,” Tyson countered, while also contending that the acceptance of federal grant funding has come at the expense of local businesses. 

Tyson also expressed concern related to the potential for project-related “overruns” and the agency’s ability to keep the scope of the project within the grant dollars secured by the state. She also requested a detailed cost-analysis breakdown.

“Is it going to cost us more in the long run to have this program than what we’re doing in jumping through hoops for the federal money?” she asked. “Sometimes the benefit is, ‘Absolutely, we need it.’ Sometimes it’s, ‘We just see federal money, so we’re going after it whether we need it or not.’”

About 1,900 of the approximately 3,000 documented Kansans living with HIV are enrolled in the program, according to data presented at the meeting. Rep. Barb Wasinger, R-Hays, wondered if there might be a more efficient way to tackle the issue. 

“In any case, it just seems like a lot of money,” she said. “We tend to do things for the smallest group — and we have to take care of them. But I think there might be a better way to do it more efficiently.” 

Tyson added, “We jump through hoops for federal money not understanding the consequences of what taking that money means. There is a cost or return on investment, and sometimes that is a negative versus a positive.” 

Sen. Jeff Pittman, D-Leavenworth, said the program has had a positive impact on the lives of many Kansans. 

“The Ryan White program has helped a lot of people in the past, and I’m glad we’re updating it and that we’re able to provide these services,” he said.

Matt Resnick is a statehouse reporter at State Affairs Pro Kansas/Hawver’s Capitol Report. Reach him at [email protected]

Lugar monument unveiling set for Sept. 3

Posted on by Brian A. Howey

The mayor who created the modern capital city, the senator who saved Chrysler and kept weapons of mass destruction at bay — Richard G. Lugar — will be honored at 10 a.m. Sept. 3 at Bicentennial Unity Plaza at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.

The unveiling of the Richard Lugar monument will pay homage to one of the most influential politicians in Hoosier history. Keynoting the event will be former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 

The monument will be installed later in its permanent location at Lugar Plaza, along the Indianapolis Cultural Trail on the south side of the City-County Building where, as mayor, Lugar orchestrated the pivotal era that launched modern Indianapolis. 

Event organizers said the Lugar monument “refers us to both the past and the future. Dick Lugar is arguably the historic first citizen of Indiana. It is difficult to edge out a former president, and Benjamin Harrison deserves his due. But Lugar’s public service left a greater mark on the state and nation. He was certainly the most consequential public servant of Indiana’s second hundred years.”

His public service is summarized on the five bronze tablets encircling the Lugar statue. The monument encapsulates his career: Rhodes Scholar, U.S. Navy officer, school board member, mayor, U.S. senator and world leader.  

Continue reading “Lugar monument unveiling set for Sept. 3”

Appeals court says feds don’t have to reinstate federal family planning funds in Tennessee

Posted on by Andy Sher

The federal government doesn’t have to reinstate Tennessee’s Title X family planning grant money as a legal battle plays out over the state’s anti-abortion policy, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week.

Tennessee, which has a near-total ban on abortions, has said the state would commit only to conducting counseling and referrals for options “deemed legal” in the state. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers that to be out of compliance and halted further grant funding. The state sued in federal court in East Tennessee over the decision and sought a preliminary injunction to block it.

Chief U.S. District Judge Travis McDonough of Chattanooga had found the state’s request for a preliminary injunction, saying Tennessee doesn’t have a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim and that the balance of the preliminary injunction faces favor HHS’s position.

The appeals court reviewed the district court’s decision and affirmed denial of the preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision. The court said the 2021 rule was a permissible construction of Title X and that Tennessee officials had voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the federal grant, including the counseling and referral provisions. And the judges also wrote HHS’s actions did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause or the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

The appellate judges also found that Tennessee failed to show irreparable harm and that the public interest favored a correct application of Title X regulations. 

The 6th Circuit panel noted its decision followed similar findings in an Ohio case last year.

“Based in part on our decision in Ohio, the appellate court denied Tennessee’s preliminary injunction, concluding that Tennessee was not likely to succeed on the merits and that the balance of the equities and the public interest did not favor relief.” 

The judges noted the district court in Tennessee also concluded Tennessee had “no basis” to force funding from HHS without meeting the obligations upon which the Title X funding was conditioned.

The case was argued by Whitney D. Hermandorfer, the Director of the Strategic Litigation Unit in Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office, and Courtney Dixson of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

In a statement, Skrmetti spokeswoman Amy Lannom Wilhite said the office is reviewing the opinion and “considering next steps.”

The appeals judges presiding over the case were Julia Gibbons of Memphis, Raymond Kethledge and Stephanie Dawkins Davis, both of Michigan. The majority opinion was written by Davis, an appointee of President Joe Biden, and joined by Gibbons, who was named to the bench by President George W. Bush. Kethledge, who was also a Bush nominee, said he would have enjoined the enforcement of the rule.

Kethledge noted that since the Ohio case was decided last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its 1984 Chevron decision, which required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretation of legal ambiguities.

But Davis in the majority opinion noted that in its guidance, the Supreme Court “broadly stated that it ‘do[es] not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.’ ”

In other words, she wrote, while the decision “opens the door to new challenges based on new agency actions interpreting statutes, it forecloses new challenges based on specific agency actions that were already resolved via Chevron deference analysis.”

Former Rep. Eberhart starts prison sentence for casino conspiracy

Posted on by Tom Davies

Former state Rep. Sean Eberhart has reported to a federal prison in Kentucky to begin serving his sentence for illegally influencing casino legislation in return for the promise of a $350,000-a-year job.

Eberhart is being held at the minimum-security satellite camp of the Federal Correctional Institution Manchester, where he arrived Thursday, according to Bureau of Prisons spokesman Benjamin O’Cone.

The prison is near Manchester, Kentucky, about a 100-mile drive southeast of Lexington.

Eberhart projected to serve about 10 months

A federal judge last month sentenced Eberhart, 58, to 12 months and one day in prison on his guilty plea to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, with a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

The Bureau of Prisons lists Eberhart with a release date of June 28, 2025, which is about two months short of his full sentence.

O’Cone said Eberhart’s projected release date is based on a calculation of good conduct credit time reducing his incarceration period.

Eberhart’s sentence stemmed from illegally working on behalf of Indianapolis-based Spectacle Entertainment while a broad gambling expansion bill advanced during the 2019 legislative session.

No word on more charges from investigation

No one else has been charged in connection with Eberhart’s conspiracy case, and his sentencing hearing last month gave no indication of any forthcoming charges against Spectacle executives or others.

Eberhart’s defense attorney, Patrick Cotter of Chicago, declined to comment Tuesday to State Affairs about Eberhart starting his prison sentence or whether he was cooperating with federal authorities regarding the case.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Indianapolis has declined to discuss whether the investigation is ongoing. The office didn’t immediately reply Tuesday to a request for comment.

Eberhart, a Republican from Shelbyville, was an Indiana House member for the 57th District from 2006 until he didn’t seek reelection in 2022. 

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brookman last month also ordered Eberhart to pay $60,000 in restitution to the State Budget Agency — an amount similar to his annual salary as a legislator — along with a $25,000 fine, and to spend one year on supervised release after completing his prison time.

Other fallout from Spectacle investigations

Eberhart’s district included what is now the Horseshoe Indianapolis horse track and casino near Shelbyville. He frequently sponsored casino-related legislation, including a multiyear push to allow live table games such as blackjack at Indiana’s two horse track casinos.

The wide-ranging 2019 legislation allowed a new casino in Terre Haute, along with reducing the Gary casino transfer fee from an earlier proposed $100 million to $20 million and enacting tax incentives that would have benefitted Spectacle Entertainment. Other provisions allowed live table games at the horse track casinos and the start of sports betting in the state.

The charges against Eberhart followed the federal sentencings of former state Sen. Brent Waltz and Spectacle executive John Keeler for a scheme to illegally funnel casino company money to Waltz’s unsuccessful 2016 congressional campaign.

Those charges led the Indiana Gaming Commission to force Spectacle and longtime Indiana casino heavyweight Rod Ratcliff to give up ownership of the Gary and Terre Haute casino projects.

Tom Davies is a Statehouse reporter for State Affairs Pro Indiana. Reach him at [email protected] or on X at @TomDaviesIND.

Your search query contained invalid characters or was empty. Please try again with a valid query.