IBJNews

Agency endorses big cut to state horse racing’s $58M subsidy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Inspector General is recommending that the lucrative $58 million subsidy paid annually to the state’s horse racing industry be cut by more than half—a move that could strike a huge blow to a business aiming to raise its profile.

The agency, which investigates state fraud and abuse claims, made the suggestion in a report last week that exonerates the Indiana Horse Racing Commission of any criminal or ethical wrongdoing.

The Inspector General launched the 16-month probe amid numerous allegations of potential violations, including inappropriate wagering involving jockeys and horse owners betting on their own races.

A review of Indiana law found that the wagering is legal. But if the state Legislature wants to stop the activity, the Inspector General wrote, it would back a statutory prohibition.

A bigger issue, though, is the agency's proposal to slice the racing industry’s annual subsidy from $58 million to $28 million—the amount it received prior to the opening of the two racinos near horse tracks Hoosier Park in Anderson and Indiana Downs in Shelbyville.

Indiana's horse racing industry began receiving state subsidies in 1993, initially from taxes on riverboat gambling. In 2007, the state Legislature expanded the funding to include a portion of revenue from the racinos' slot machines.

The racinos, which opened in 2009, set aside 15 percent of their slot-machine revenue, with 60 percent of the set-aside going toward purse money at the tracks and the remaining 40 percent going to promote horse breeding in the state. Since 1993, the Indiana horse racing industry has received a total of $427 million in subsidies.

The idea is that more prize money and better horses will attract more people, and money, to the sport. The additional funding seems to have had an impact. The sport's direct economic impact has grown from $181 million in 2005 to $733 million in 2010, according to a Purdue University study.

What started as a subsidy to jumpstart an industry might need to be re-evaluated, Inspector General David O. Thomas said in a written statement.

“Assuming that a continued subsidy to the horse racing community is deemed proper by the Indiana Legislature, we respectfully recommend that the Legislature consider evaluating the amount of the subsidy and consider a monetary cap at pre-racino figures,” he said.

Any efforts to cut the $58 million subsidy would be devastating to the industry, said Herb Likens, chairman of the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

"The quality of racing in the state of Indiana would go down rapidly," he said. "I know there's a lot of competition for dollars, but people don't realize how important horse racing is to Indiana, especially where I'm at in Anderson."

Likens owns nine horses that race at Hoosier Park and said there "wouldn't be anything left" in Anderson if Hoosier Park were to close.

The state Horse Racing Commission, in a written response to the Inspector General's recommendation, declined to comment on the proposed cut.

“We have never inserted ourselves in this particular public policy issue in the past, and will not do so now,” said Sarah McNaught, chairwoman of the Horse Racing Commission.
 
McNaught also said she’s not surprised the commission was fully exonerated of charges of wrongdoing.

“This is not the first time that fabricated charges have been levied against the commission, its staff or other industry participants,” she said. “Since my tenure as chair began in 2005, I have sadly learned that spreading misinformation is an all-too-common way for a small number of industry participants to pursue their personal and/or political agendas.”

Joe Gorajec, the Horse Racing Commission’s executive director, is appointed by the commission, unlike leaders of the Indiana Gaming Commission and Indiana Lottery Commission, who are selected by the governor.

The Inspector General said the Horse Racing Commission’s executive director also should be appointed by the governor, “to maintain similar accountability, and due to the oversight of over $140 million in annually wagered funds.”

The report also questioned the commission’s spending of more than $300,000 annually in outside legal fees, and said it should employ an in-house attorney, similar to other state commissions. A staff attorney would enable the Horse Racing Commission to save money and to employ a lawyer more familiar with state government.

The Inspector General said it launched its investigation into the horse racing industry at the request of several state legislators, Gov. Mitch Daniels and people in the horse racing community. Legislative action would be required to make any of the Inspector General's recommended changes.

More than 100 witnesses were interviewed for the report, the Inspector General said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • State Entertainment Subsidy
    If the horse racing industry needs tax payer subsidy to survive, then its not really a profitable business is it? It is more of a government supplied entertainment venture. Maybe we don't need it!
  • Good state investment, not "subsidy"
    According to an economic impact study released in 2010 by the Purdue-Calumet School of Business Management, the Indiana horse racing and breeding industry has a direct economic impact of more than $733 million in the state, including more than 10,000 jobs. That's better than $12 for every $1 put into the industry. The revenue from racinos dedicated to racing and breeding since 2007 is drawing out-of-state investment to Indiana and preserving commercial, agribusiness and employment activity throughout the state.
  • Too much power and money
    The IHRC has been given too much money and POWER. This money has given them the power to spend endlessly on witch hunts. When agencies can act without accountability, this is what happens. I know first hand. They have wasted tens of thousands on nothing just because they can. WASTE. I bet the law firm that works for the IHRC would hate to see this sub lost. It might get into their pockets then, but then of course they would go dig up some of that 58 million that they buried out back.
  • Facts Please
    Particularly enjoyed the statement from the chairman of the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association that: "people don't realize how important horse racing is to Indiana" What would have been a great follow up to that statement was some facts and figures illustrating the importance of racing.....unless of course those facts and figures don't exist.
  • Per Person cost
    The population of Indiana is 6,423,113. That is a cost of $9.03 for everyone in Indiana to subsidize horse racing. This is a total waste of money and resources. I agree with all comments above. End this subsidy now.
  • Per Person cost
    The population of Indiana is 6,423,113. That is a cost of $9.03 for everyone in Indiana to subsidize horse racing. This is a total waste of money and resources. I agree with all comments above. End this subsidy now.
  • Wealth Redistribution
    Let me understand this. We tax the casinos near or beyond bankruptcy, then subsidize the "horse racing industry" and think it is a good thing? Only in government.

    I also would say that gambling is nothing but a tax on the huddled masses. It is voluntary, but no less a tax.

    Gambling must be rooted out and eradicated... unless the state plays the house. Then it is vital and valuable. Whatever.
  • Follow the money
    Who is getting all this subsidy money?

    Let this industry succeed or fail on it's own without an endless state subsidy. They have had over 15 years to "jump start" the industry and the money can be used elsewhere.

    Cut the entire subsidy now.
  • Who else?
    Here's an idea for a paper or some sort of watchdog entity: Who else gets subsidies like this?

    I understand the need to pay a little to get an industry started to benefit the state and realize it is done all the time by tax breaks, but this is an actual state payment right?

    There is such an outcry over helping the Colts or Pacers, makes me wonder why the public doesnt complain about this - probably because they dont know.

    Who else does the State subsidize?
  • cut it all
    I personally know a few race horse owners as well as breeders and these people are filthy rich. Cut it all and give it to people trying to start small businesses, the wealthy people involved in horse racing will get by.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT