FEIGENBAUM: ‘Killer amendments’ waylay expected policy changes

Veteran legislative observers had felt the timing was right this year for two policy changes long overdue.

The Sunday alcohol package sales ban, a vestige of Prohibition which spawned the “blue laws,” appeared destined for a House vote after the House Committee on Public Policy chairman—Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte—authored a repeal measure. Recent national history and public sentiment appeared on its side, and major retailers and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce lined up behind it.

Legislative leadership, long a major hurdle for repeal, seemed willing to allow members to decide the issue on its merits.

Similarly, Dermody introduced a measure to help Indiana’s 13 gambling properties compete against out-of-state competition that had decimated revenues (and state tax dollars and gambling-related employment). While there wasn’t the weight of eight decades of history inhibiting change, economic and market-force upheaval characterized the eight years since the last major gambling law change—“slots at the tracks” in 2007.

After a few years of missed opportunities, action appeared imminent.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the floor with both measures.

The Sunday sales and gambling industry assistance bills were both amended in committee in ways that some believe were intended as sabotage.

That leads us to “killer amendments” and their role in the legislative process.

Sometimes a lawmaker—or leadership—promises action on a given bill. They want to keep their word even if ultimate passage could be compromised, and may take drastic measures to move the item to the floor or through a chamber. This may happen even as backers understand the bill’s original purpose may have changed so drastically, benefactors may no longer benefit.

That may have occurred with the Sunday sales bill. Dermody amended his own bill in his own committee to pair Sunday sales for big-box retailers with a series of requirements that would make it so expensive for a few major chains (up front costs over $50 million even before ongoing new personnel, training, and compliance)—that it made sense to scuttle the bill.

The big retailers may now be forced to work with package liquor stores toward a sweet spot that would allow the latter to grow market share at limited expense.

When a bill is amended to where your mortal enemy of 80 years suddenly embraces it, you know the amendment doesn’t inure to your benefit. But the tactic may have been required to move the bill from committee, or even to pass it through the House.

Similarly, Dermody’s gambling assistance bill sailed through the substantive committee, but after being delayed following its being scheduled in the Committee on Ways and Means (never a positive sign), it was saddled with an amendment from that panel’s chair, Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville. The state would siphon off a substantial share of gambling tax dollars from local governments, and complicate a move to land for the Gary casinos—who paved the way for 1993 legalization.

Some hinted this was a killer amendment designed by leadership to put the kibosh on elements viewed by Gov. Mike Pence and House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, as unacceptable expansion, and protect state coffers from further tax breaks for one industry.

A fervent local rebellion fought to preserve current town, city and county revenues even at the expense of some casino and racino reforms and tax breaks.

In the end, the bill largely returned in the form in which it emerged from Public Policy, deferred the big tax changes to yet another study, and offered some goodies for French Lick.

So watch for amendments and their professed purpose.

Sometimes a “killer” amendment can be just that, but it can also force further study or be attached to avoid having a bill killed upfront and keep it moving … until portions can be cherry-picked and resurrected in conference committee.•

__________

Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. He can be reached at edf@ingrouponline.com.