Slew of bills dealing with state contracts, health care, casinos and more head to Indiana governor
Among the bills sent to Gov. Mike Braun Wednesday was a Senate Republican priority measure to increase transparency — and scrutiny — around state government contracts.
Sen. Scott Baldwin's Senate Enrolled Act 5 advanced for a final time from both the House and Senate with almost unanimous bipartisan support. Across both chambers, only Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, was opposed.
Included in the final draft of the bill are new rules for contacts awarded by state agencies and offices — including a ban on non-public, no-bid deals — and steeper expectations for vendors paid with taxpayer dollars. It also mandates 'unfilled' government positions be eliminated, and requires state offices to more closely monitor and publicly report on spending, as well as in-flow and out-flow of federal funds.
Last-minute conference committee negotiations carved out exemptions for agreements between the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and private employers. Baldwin noted that some 1,300 offenders are currently employed through 13 DOC 'joint ventures' with companies like Cummins, Goodwill, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the Indiana Pacers.
'These are very difficult to bid out. They're very specialized, and so we've excluded them for that sole purpose,' the senator said Wednesday morning. All other reporting requirements will still apply, though.
Another exception was made for child support contracting between Indiana's Department of Child Services and local prosecutors.
Certain health care entities will additionally be required to report ownership information to the state as part of a transparency effort to detangle potential conflicts of interest under House Enrolled Act 1666.
It passed the House on a 78-13 vote, with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. The proposal had an easier journey in the Senate, where it had unanimous support.
Providers like hospitals, insurers, third party administrators and pharmacy benefit managers will need to detail ownership stakes to either the Indiana Department of Health or the Indiana Department of Insurance, depending on their services.
The Secretary of State's Office will also be involved in collecting and reporting data.
Senators urged their House counterparts to exclude owners with less than a 5% interest in the entity at the behest of small-time providers seeking anonymity — particularly dentists, who are no longer impacted by the bill. That language survived conference committee edits.
But House authors disagreed with the Senate's additional confidentiality provisions, though bill does give overseeing agencies some discretion when it comes to public reporting.
'The Senate added so much confidentiality that it was no longer a transparency bill,' author Rep. Julie McGuire, R-Indianapolis, concluded.
The proposal, along with Senate Enrolled Act 118, both head to the governor, who previously signaled his support for such transparency measures.
The latter moved with minimal opposition and would compel certain hospitals and health care providers to provide detailed reporting on their participation in the 340B drug program, which pairs drug manufacturer discounts with hospitals caring for underserved populations.
Some critics say large health systems unfairly profit, prompting additional scrutiny from the state. The initial bill was amended to exclude certain Health Resources and Services Administration grantees.
'When it came back from the House, there was a concern that it may have excluded some hospitals that we wanted to report,' said author Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso. 'The conference committee report simply clarifies that.'
The Senate approved the measure unanimously but it had two opposing votes in the House.
Legislation to study relocating a poor-performing casino — or adding a new casino — will soon cross Braun's desk, too. Senators on Wednesday concurred with House changes in a 37-11 vote.
Senate Enrolled Act 43 would require the Indiana Gaming Commission to contract out for a study to assess the top two regions, revenue-wise, for a casino license.
Author Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, initially sought to relocate a failing casino operating near the Indiana-Kentucky border to the Fort Wayne area. When that effort failed, Zay overhauled an empty vehicle bill to create the study.
'Destabilizing' Indiana casino relocation study could also recommend new license
During its trip through the House, the legislation was narrowed from three regions, but expanded by striking relocation-specific language. The study would only take place 'subject to available funding,' despite a new November deadline. As he introduced that amendment, Rep. Ethan Manning, R-Logansport, noted 'the biggest hole in the market is northeast Indiana.' He indicated another possibility is Indianapolis.
Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, said Wednesday that he'd heard a location has been 'earmarked' for Fort Wayne. Zay rejected that.
'Nothing has been earmarked. And that's why we're doing the study, to determine where the best locations might be — independent of any influences,' Zay replied.
Randolph also suggested a set-aside for South Bend, but Zay said the city is 'already under compact' with the Potawatomi tribe and its Four Winds Casino. Senate Enrolled Act 43's text mandates an 'impact assessment of a potential tribal casino in the region' and consideration of the 'impact of a potential tribal casino on revenues.'
Another measure seeking Braun's signature, Senate Enrolled Act 146, will raise minimum public teacher pay to $45,000 and bump the minimum percentage of tuition support that schools must spend on teacher pay.
The bill — part of the governor's priority agenda — passed out of the House a final time in a 90-1 vote, and 47-0 from the Senate.
The average teacher salary in Indiana during the last school year was recorded at $60,557, according to the latest state teacher compensation report. The lowest teacher salary reported was $40,000 — the current state-mandated minimum. The highest was $110,000. Teacher pay is ultimately set by local school districts.
The original Senate bill, authored by Sen. Linda Rogers, would have additionally provided 20 days of parental leave to teachers who have worked for a school district for at least six months.
That provision was ultimately removed, however, due to budget constraints.
'It was for fiscal reasons, not for policy reasons,' said Rogers, R-Granger. 'It's something I'm sure that we all want to work towards, but it is something that in local school corporations, they can still do today as part of the bargaining process. … I just don't think this is the right time. There are a lot of reasons to do it. Unfortunately, dollars play into it, and I'm trying to be cognizant of the budgets of local school corporations.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chinese Officials Say They Won't Sell TikTok's Algorithm to US
This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter. Checking in on the TikTok-U.S. saga, with over 200 days passed since the official, Senate-approved TikTok sell-off bill went into effect. And things are not looking great, with the Chinese government reiterating that it has no intention of selling TikTok's algorithmic black box as part of any U.S. partnership deal. Via the state-media publication China Daily, the CCP says that the launch of an official White House TikTok account this week contradicts the focus of the sell-off bill, and the risks that the U.S. government is ostensibly seeking to protect against. The White House launched its own TikTok channel on Monday, and has already posted several updates to the app. Which has raised the ire of Chinese officials. As per China Daily: 'That the White House now has its own TikTok account undoubtedly contradicts the 'national security threat' rhetoric that claims ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government and that the app could be used to influence US citizens.' That's not entirely correct, as an official White House account in the app doesn't reduce the potential impact that Chinese-backed operations could be having in seeking to influence the opinions of Western users via the app. But nevertheless, the Chinese government has criticized the perceived hypocrisy of the White House presence, while also noting various other 'unwarranted security threat' allegations against Chinese companies. 'The electronics companies Huawei and ZTE, as well as those related to shipbuilding and port equipment, have also been unjustifiably targeted. DJI, a Chinese drone maker, was put on the US government's blacklist and then removed simply because its US clients could not find substitutes for its products.' Again, this is somewhat subjective, as the broader threat that TikTok poses may be in both data collection, while also using TikTok to amplify pro-CCP content, in order to sway opinions in its favor. Trump and Co. posting a few videos won't change this, with the Trump team merely seeing this as an opportunity to broadcast their message to younger audiences, and use the reach of TikTok to its benefit. So really, it's just more political propaganda in the app. But either way, the CCP has taken the opportunity to reiterate that it will not be selling TikTok with its algorithm any time soon. 'As Chinese foreign and commerce ministries' spokespersons have said on different occasions, the operation and acquisition of enterprises should be based on market principles and decided independently by the enterprises concerned. If Chinese enterprises are involved, they must comply with Chinese laws and regulations. Notably, the Chinese authorities have issued a catalogue of technologies prohibited and restricted for export. This explicitly prohibits the export of core technologies such as short video algorithms, drawing a red line for the TikTok transaction.' This has long been the CCP's stance, that even if it is able to negotiate a deal to keep TikTok in operation in the U.S., it's not selling the app's core algorithm, which is the key driver of TikTok engagement. Potential U.S. partners have been cautious in committing to a deal without the algorithm as a part of the package, while various alternatives have also been floated, including the possible development of a U.S. only version of the app, with a scaled-down algorithm based on the original (note: TikTok says that this is not happening). Would that be as effective? The key lure of TikTok is that it's so good at learning what you're interested in, every time that you log in, with your feed transforming before your eyes to better align with whatever catches your attention on a given day. The secret sauce here is in-depth entity identification within video clips, with each of those elements then cross-matched against a wide variety of signals from the app's billions of other users, both on TikTok and on Douyin, its Chinese sister app. That incorporates a range of in-video details, and TikTok's algorithm is seemingly much better at this process than Meta or other social media competitors. As such, it makes sense that TikTok would want to keep those details in-house, and away from others in the market. And at the same time, I suspect that TikTok's entity matching may include some identifiers that would be considered less acceptable under review, including notes on creators' physical traits. So there are several reasons why TikTok would want to keep this information secret, and away from U.S. ownership. And if the Chinese government sticks to this stance, it could mean that TikTok is indeed on a path to being banned in the U.S. Indeed, last month, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that the U.S. government will take a stand, and will be looking to implement a full ban TikTok on the app if a deal for its sale to a U.S. entity cannot be finalized by the current September 17th deadline. So we could be on a collision course, if both sides stick to their guns this time. Recommended Reading TikTok Highlights Female Creators and Brands for International Women's Day
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong Predicts $1M Bitcoin by 2030
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong Predicts $1M Bitcoin by 2030 originally appeared on TheStreet. Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, has long been one of crypto's most influential voices — and now he's making one of his boldest predictions yet: Bitcoin will hit $1 million by 2030. Armstrong made the claim during a recent interview, highlighting a confluence of regulatory progress, institutional demand, and diminishing structural risks around Bitcoin. 'The rough idea I have in my head is we'll see a million-dollar Bitcoin by 2030,' Armstrong said. 'There's high error bars around these things, but just to give you a couple of data points...' Who Is Brian Armstrong? Armstrong, 41, launched Coinbase in 2012 from a rented apartment after realizing how difficult it was to buy Bitcoin. At the time, crypto was still a niche hobby for technologists. Today, Coinbase is a publicly traded company (NASDAQ: COIN), and Armstrong is one of the most influential players in the digital asset industry. The company serves over 100 million users globally and plays a key role in helping both retail and institutional clients access crypto markets. He has weathered everything from bull-market euphoria to brutal crypto winters — and has remained one of the industry's staunchest defenders in Washington and Wall Street alike. Armstrong's $1M thesis Armstrong's forecast rests on a few key developments. First and foremost is regulatory clarity, which he says has taken a major leap forward this year. 'We're starting to see regulatory clarity emerge in the United States, which I think is a bellwether for the rest of the G20,' Armstrong said. He pointed to the GENIUS Act, which codifies stablecoin regulation, and the market structure bill currently under debate in the U.S. Senate. 'Fingers crossed something could happen by the end of this year. That would be a huge milestone.' Another milestone? The U.S. government now holds Bitcoin. 'If you'd asked me five years ago, that would've been kind of like vision board stuff, and someone would've said, 'You're crazy. The U.S. government's not going to officially hold Bitcoin.' But they do now — there's an executive order for it.' According to Armstrong, Coinbase is already providing crypto services to over 140 government entities globally — including local, state, federal, and international bodies. Big money is lurking Armstrong also touched on how institutional capital is just waiting for the regulatory green light before diving deeper into crypto. 'These big institutions I talk to, they're holding 1% of the portfolio in Bitcoin. And I'm like, 'What would it take to move it to 2, 5, even 10%?' And they say, 'Regulatory clarity.' That's it.' The Bitcoin ETFs launched earlier this year, including those from BlackRock, Fidelity, and Ark Invest, have further solidified crypto's position as a serious asset class. 'The ETFs have been huge,' Armstrong added. Tech risk? Mostly behind us As for the technical risks, Armstrong says they've largely been addressed. He acknowledged that the community still needs to prepare for post-quantum cryptography, but that work is already underway. 'We need to make sure we upgrade it to a post-quantum cryptography. Are elliptic curves already post-quantum or no? They are theoretically. I believe there is a path... Bitcoin core, Ethereum, Solana — everyone's looking at proposals now.' Armstrong concluded by emphasizing that the biggest risks — regulatory shutdowns, protocol flaws, institutional fear — are rapidly diminishing, just as adoption is accelerating. 'I don't see the regulatory thing going away. That was one of the big risks — is the government going to shut this down? I think that risk has been severely diminished.' Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong Predicts $1M Bitcoin by 2030 first appeared on TheStreet on Aug 20, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Aug 20, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Crypto ‘Conflicts of Interest' Are ‘Blocking' Dem Legislation Support, Top Lawmaker Says
JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. — Despite growing bipartisan efforts to bring clear regulation to the digital asset industry, one main issue that stands in the way of passing legislation in the U.S. is President Donald Trump and his family's actions in the sector, according to Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) 'It's no secret that my side of the aisle would prefer not to see any sitting President — I won't name one — participating in this market while a sitting president unless those assets are in a sealed trust,' Craig said on stage at the SALT conference in Jackson Hole on Wednesday. Trump, as well as his family, particularly Eric Trump, who was present at the venue during Craig's appearance, have both built businesses in the industry, particularly since Trump retook office this past January. Trump has issued several meme coins tied to his name and his social media platform, Truth Social, has applied for several exchange-traded funds. Eric Trump co-founded American Bitcoin, a mining company owned by Hut 8. Craig, who was joined by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wi.), spoke on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act which the House passed with a massive bipartisan vote last month. The Senate Banking Committee is working on its own version of crypto market structure legislation. While the majority of Republicans are in favor of the bill, many Democrats remain skeptical, and a big reason for that is the Trump family's involvement in the industry, Craig said. 'The elephant in the room here is the President's family's participation in this marketplace and that's a stumbling block to get more Democrats to support the legislation,' she said. Craig said that while there is some language in the legislation that limits this conflict of interest, a stronger tone is needed to convince some lawmakers. 'If we could find some language that would allow or prevent conflicts of interest to occur, from our perspective, I think you would see a whole lot more Democrats support it,' she said. Craig is the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, meaning she is the leading Democrat on that committee. This isn't the first time she's referenced the Trump family's crypto tie-ups — during a committee hearing in June on the Clarity Act, she said his crypto actions were "making this debate more difficult" and suggested that Congress should add restrictions on how the U.S. president can trade in markets overseen by the CFTC, including her comments, Craig still voted to advance the Clarity Act without any such language being added. Join the crypto policy conversation Sept. 10 in D.C. — Register now for CoinDesk: Policy & Regulation. Sign in to access your portfolio
