 |
| Contribute Today
|
 |
| Home
|
 |
| About CAC
|
 |
| Take Action!
|
 |
| In The News...
|
 |
| Indiana General Assembly
|
 |
| Stop Duke Coal Gasification (IGCC) Power Plant!
|
 |
| Energy Issues
|
 |
| Utility Issues
|
 |
| Health Care Issues
|
 |
| Family Farm Issues
|
 |
| Publications
|
 |
| Admin Menu
|
 |
|
 |
Topic: Voting Records The new items published under this topic are as follows.
|
|
See all
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
2010 Indiana General Assembly Voting Records
Overview
The 2010 Indiana General Assembly was a short session, which yielded fewer pieces of legislation that CAC followed. This gave the legislators a slimmer margin to vote in the correct way, working to pass legislation that would begin to move Indiana toward a future of efficiency and renewables. For a more detailed discussion of the bills CAC dealt with in the 2010 Indiana General Assembly, click here.
Governor Mitch Daniels
From 2006 - 2008, Governor Daniels took $498,596 from Utility, Coal, Oil, and Railroad Corporations. Already in 2010, Governor Daniels has taken $30,500 from the same industries. For a more detailed discussion about the Daniels' Energy Plan for Indiana, click here.
The Indiana State General Assembly Report Card
| |
2009 |
|
2010 |
| |
Pro-Consumer
Votes* |
2008 Campaign
Contributions** |
Pro-Consumer
Votes* |
2010 Campaign
Contributions** |
| Indiana Senate Democrats |
62% |
$26,874 |
55% |
N/A |
| Indiana Senate Republicans |
53% |
$186,700 |
57% |
N/A |
| Indiana Senate Total |
56% |
$213,574 |
56% |
N/A |
| |
| Indiana House Democrats |
75% |
$145,525 |
98% |
N/A |
| Indiana House Republicans |
50% |
$200,325 |
34% |
N/A |
| Indiana House Total |
63% |
$345,850 |
66% |
N/A |
*Pro-Consumer Votes: Percentage of votes on the bills that CAC worked on that were pro-consumer
**Campaign Contributions: Money accepted by legislators from Utility, Coal, Oil, and Railroad Corporations (www.followthemoney.org)
How Your Legislators Voted
To find out how your legislators voted, just click on the name of your State Senator below.
If you need to look up your State legislators, visit www.votesmart.org. You will need your zip +4. If you don't know the last 4 digits of your zip code, you can look them up at www.usps.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: cacadmin on Wednesday, March 17, 2010
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
2009 Indiana General Assembly Voting Records and Campaign Contributions
Overview
There were many more pieces of positive legislation introduced in 2009 than in the previous year. This gave the legislators more of an opportunity to vote in the right way, working to pass legislation that would begin to move Indiana toward a future of efficiency and renewables. The voting records of Indiana State Senators and Representatives had a dramatic increase over 2008, although it is still not what we would consider a passing grade (80%). The State Representatives are still voting pro-consumer more often than the State Senators.
Of the two bills that actually ended up passing into law, one was good and one was bad. The good one was HB 1669, which establishes a State fund to make loans to schools that install geothermal heating and cooling systems. However, that fund has no money in it at the moment. The bad one was SB 423 (the Leucadia Bill), which permits the Indiana Finance Authority to enter into contracts for the purchase and sale of substitute natural gas (SNG) from coal gasification facilities to regulated energy utilities for delivery to retail end use customers. For a more detailed discussion of the bills CAC dealt with in the 2009 Indiana General Assembly, click here.
Governor Mitch Daniels
From 2006 - 2008, Governor Daniels has taken $498,596 from Utility, Coal, Oil, and Railroad Corporations. For a more detailed discussion about the Daniels' Energy Plan for Indiana, click here.
The Indiana State General Assembly Report Card
| |
2008 |
|
2009 |
| |
Pro-Consumer
Votes* |
2006 Campaign
Contributions** |
Pro-Consumer
Votes* |
2008 Campaign
Contributions** |
| Indiana Senate Democrats |
42% |
$36,490 |
62% |
$26,874 |
| Indiana Senate Republicans |
4% |
$105,464 |
53% |
$186,700 |
| Indiana Senate Total |
17% |
$141,954 |
56% |
$213,574 |
| |
| Indiana House Democrats |
64% |
$120,950 |
75% |
$145,525 |
| Indiana House Republicans |
8% |
$211,572 |
50% |
$200,325 |
| Indiana House Total |
37% |
$332,522 |
63% |
$345,850 |
*Pro-Consumer Votes: Percentage of votes on the bills that CAC worked on that were pro-consumer
**Campaign Contributions: Money accepted by legislators from Utility, Coal, Oil, and Railroad Corporations (www.followthemoney.org)
How Your Legislators Voted
To find out how your legislators voted, just click on the name of your State Senator and your State Representative below.
If you need to look up your State legislators, visit www.votesmart.org. You will need your zip +4. If you don't know the last 4 digits of your zip code, you can look them up at www.usps.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: cacadmin on Sunday, January 03, 2010
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
2008 Indiana General Assembly Voting Records
Overview
From a consumer/ratepayer viewpoint and looking strictly at the voting tendencies in 2008, the Indiana General Assembly, with the exception of a few individuals, is not a consumer friendly body with respect to energy/utility issues. Current voting tendencies appear to reflect:
- A lack of understanding with respect to the economic, job creation, affordability and public health implications of the votes;
- A preference for the status quo; or,
- A preference to support the immediate interests of utility companies and/or organized labor.
The Overall Pro-Consumer Voting Percentage for the Senate was 17%.
This means that with regard to the bills that we followed this year, the Senate voted for consumer interests 17% of the time, and against consumer interests 83% of the time.
The Overall Pro-Consumer Voting Percentage for the House was 37%.
This means that with regard to the bills that we followed this year, the House voted for consumer interests 37% of the time, and against consumer interests 63% of the time.
General Voting Trends
Although the House was slightly more positive than the Senate in terms of the issues heard in committee and overall votes, both chambers, with few individual exceptions, voted consistently against consumers when it came to immediate pocketbook issues. The issues voted on concerned the ability of utility companies to recover costs more readily and/or to expand their access to consumer pocketbooks coupled with weaker regulatory oversight.
The House was somewhat more willing to move the energy efficiency agenda with respect to green building design, with most support from the Democrat side. The Senate gutted the green building legislation by converting it to a study committee, which is surprising given the overwhelming evidence of savings derived from reducing energy use in buildings with proper design.
Neither chamber was particularly supportive of jumpstarting a renewable energy market in Indiana. The House demonstrated clear bipartisan opposition. However, in the Senate Democrats were much more willing to support a statewide RES.
Governor Mitch Daniels' Energy Plan
To find out about how much money Governor Daniels took from the utilities and coal lobbies, and about the energy plan that he is working to implement in Indiana, click here.
How Your Legislators Voted
To find out how your legislators voted, just click on the name of your State Senator and your State Representative below.
If you need to look up your State legislators, visit www.votesmart.org. You will need your zip +4. If you don't know the last 4 digits of your zip code, you can look them up at www.usps.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: cacadmin on Friday, October 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
House Bill 1722
Anti-Consumer Legislation
Locks ratepayers into an unalterable 30 year contract for gas manufactured by a coal gasification plant in southern Indiana with:
An out-of-state owner, so our heating dollars will continue to flow out-of-state.
Sight-unseen contracts currently before the IURC.
Unknown ultimate costs for the plant, which will be much higher than the $1.7 billion projection.
Commercially unproven technology.
Senate Bill 206
Anti-Consumer Legislation in the Senate
1) Would allow electric utility companies to upgrade aging plants to reduce air emissions even though other, cheaper alternatives, like energy efficiency, would allow them to be phased out.
2) Would allow for automatic rate increases in the form of incentives beyond the actual cost of mitigating or offsetting air pollution problems.
Pro-consumer Legislation in the House
Dave Crooks (D-Washington), chair of the House utilities committee amended SB 206 to remove the anti-consumer language and inserted the public power authority study language for NIPSCO electric from HB 1824.
Senate Bill 410
Anti-consumer legislation
Would allow for utilities to raise profits by installing advanced metering equipment that would allow utilities to charge ratepayers according to the time of day electricity is used. The sole purpose is to boost utility revenue. The bill:
1) Circumvents an on-going investigation by state regulators to determine if advanced metering makes sense.
2) Allows for virtual automatic recovery of installing advanced meters and recovering costs from old meters not yet paid for.
3) Forces ratepayers to pay for new technology that may be unnecessary and too expensive.
Senate Bill 525
Anti-Consumer Legislation
Pro-consumer legislation that became anti-consumer legislation
CAC initially supported the SB 525 because it provided incentives for the purchase of EnergyStar appliances (highly efficient appliances) and funded an industrial energy efficiency program at Purdue University . However, those provisions were stripped in the Senate Taxation Committee chaired by Robert Meeks (R-Lagrange).
House Bill 1824
Anti-Consumer Legislation
We supported this legislation until Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Monticello) added SB 206 and SB 410 to it in his committee. The original bill was a public power study for NIPSCO electric.
2007 Voting Records of the Indiana General Assembly and 2005 Contributions from Utilities
Vote: P= Pro-consumer A=Anti-consumer X=No-vote % = Pro-consumer percentage
Votes consist of committee and floor votes. Some Representatives have more votes than others because they voted in a committee, or two depending on the bill, and on the floor.
In general, votes in a particular column mean:
The first = committee vote
The second = vote out of chamber of origin
The third= vote on conference committee (final vote), if applicable
Campaign contributions: A dash (-) = Rep was not in office in 2005
VOTES AS OF MARCH 30, 2007 (Session ended last week in April)
Senator |
Town |
1722 |
206 |
410 |
525 |
1824 |
% |
2005 Utility/Coal Contributions |
Alting |
R-Lafayette |
AA |
AA |
A |
AA |
A |
0 |
$1750 |
Becker |
R-Evansville |
AP |
PP |
A |
A |
P |
57 |
$500 |
Bowser/Arnold |
D-Michigan City |
AA |
PA |
P |
- |
|
40 |
- |
Boots |
R-Crawfordsville |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
- |
Bray |
R-Martinsville |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
0 |
Breaux |
D-Indpls |
APP |
PPP |
PP |
PA |
AP |
75
| $300 |
Broden |
D- South Bend |
AA |
PP |
P |
A |
P |
57 |
$110- |
Deig |
D-Mount Vernon |
PP |
PP |
P |
AA |
P |
75 |
- |
Delph |
R-Carmel |
AX |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
0 |
Dillon |
R-Pireceton |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$2500 |
Drozda |
R-Westfield |
AA |
AA |
A |
AA |
A |
0 |
$5375 |
Ford |
R-Hartford City |
AA |
AP |
A |
AA |
P |
25 |
$250 |
Gard |
R-Greenfield |
AAA |
AAA |
AA |
PA |
AA |
8 |
$2400 |
Errington |
D-Muncie |
AAA |
PPP |
PP |
PA |
AP |
58 |
- |
Heinold |
R-Kouts |
AAA |
AAA |
AA |
PA |
AA |
8 |
$1550 |
Hershman |
R-Monticello |
AAA |
AAA |
AA |
PAA |
AA |
7 |
$500 |
Hume |
D-Princeton |
PA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
14 |
$5100 |
Howard |
D-Indpls |
AA |
PP |
P |
A |
P |
57 |
$1600 |
Jackman |
R-Milroy |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$600 |
Kenley |
R-Noblesville |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$6593 |
Lanane |
D-Anderson |
PP |
PP |
P |
A |
P |
86 |
$300 |
Landske |
R-Cedar Lake |
XAA |
AP |
A |
PAA |
AA |
20 |
$2300 |
Lawson |
R-Danville |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$1200 |
Lewis |
D-Charlestown |
PA |
AA |
P |
A |
PP |
50 |
$1850 |
Long |
R-Indpls |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$6200 |
Lubbers |
R-Indpls |
XX |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
0 |
Kruse |
R-Auburn |
AAA |
AXA |
AA |
PA |
AA |
9 |
0 |
R. Meeks |
R-LaGrange |
AA |
AA |
A |
AA |
A |
0 |
$5150 |
Merritt |
R-Indpls |
AAA |
AXA |
AA |
PA |
AA |
9 |
$6000 |
Miller |
R-Indpls |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$1250 |
Mishler |
R-Bremen |
AA |
AAA |
AA |
PA |
A |
10 |
$1500 |
Mrvan |
D-Hammond |
AA |
AP |
P |
AA |
A |
25 |
$1550 |
Nugent |
R-Lawrenceburg |
AA |
PP |
A |
A |
A |
29 |
$800 |
Riegsecker |
R-Goshen |
XX |
AA |
A |
A |
X |
0 |
$800 |
Simpson |
D-Bloomington |
PA |
PP |
P |
A |
P |
71 |
$2000 |
Sipes |
D-New Albany |
AA |
PP |
P |
AA |
P |
50 |
$600 |
Skinner |
D-Terre Haute |
PA |
AA |
A |
AA |
P |
25 |
$1450 |
Smith |
D-East Chicago |
PA |
PP |
X |
A |
P |
66 |
0 |
Steele |
R-Bedford |
AA |
PP |
A |
A |
A |
29 |
- |
Rogers |
D-Gary |
AAA |
PA |
PP |
PA |
P |
50 |
$300 |
Tallian |
D-Portage |
AAA |
AAA |
PP |
PA |
AP |
33 |
0 |
Walker |
R-Columbus |
AA |
PA |
A |
A |
A |
14 |
- |
Waltz |
R-Greenwood |
AA |
PP |
A |
A |
A |
29 |
0 |
Weatherwax |
R-Logansport |
AA |
AA |
A |
XA |
A |
0 |
$500 |
Waterman |
R-Shelburn |
XAA |
PP |
A |
A |
P |
43 |
0 |
Wyss |
R-Ft. Wayne |
AX |
XA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$7600 |
M. Young |
R-Indpls |
AA |
AP |
A |
A |
A |
14 |
$1750 |
R. Young |
D-Milltown |
PX |
PP |
P |
A |
P |
83 |
$3696 |
Zakas |
R-Granger |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
0 |
$1900 |
Paul |
R-Richmond |
AA |
AP |
A |
A |
A |
14 |
$2100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: cacadmin on Thursday, May 03, 2007
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
House Bill 1722
Anti-Consumer Legislation
Locks ratepayers into an unalterable 30 year contract for gas manufactured by a coal gasification plant in southern Indiana with:
An out-of-state owner, so our heating dollars will continue to flow out-of-state.
Sight-unseen contracts currently before the IURC.
Unknown ultimate costs for the plant, which will be much higher than the $1.7 billion projection.
Commercially unproven technology.
Senate Bill 206
Anti-Consumer Legislation in the Senate
1) Would allow electric utility companies to upgrade aging plants to reduce air emissions even though other, cheaper alternatives, like energy efficiency, would allow them to be phased out.
2) Would allow for automatic rate increases in the form of incentives beyond the actual cost of mitigating or offsetting air pollution problems.
Pro-consumer Legislation in the House
Dave Crooks (D-Washington), chair of the House utilities committee amended SB 206 to remove the anti-consumer language and inserted the public power authority study language for NIPSCO electric from HB 1824.
Senate Bill 410
Anti-consumer legislation
Would allow for utilities to raise profits by installing advanced metering equipment that would allow utilities to charge ratepayers according to the time of day electricity is used. The sole purpose is to boost utility revenue. The bill:
1) Circumvents an on-going investigation by state regulators to determine if advanced metering makes sense.
2) Allows for virtual automatic recovery of installing advanced meters and recovering costs from old meters not yet paid for.
3) Forces ratepayers to pay for new technology that may be unnecessary and too expensive.
Senate Bill 525
Anti-Consumer Legislation
Pro-consumer legislation that became anti-consumer legislation
CAC initially supported the SB 525 because it provided incentives for the purchase of EnergyStar appliances (highly efficient appliances) and funded an industrial energy efficiency program at Purdue University . However, those provisions were stripped in the Senate Taxation Committee chaired by Robert Meeks (R-Lagrange).
House Bill 1824
Anti-Consumer Legislation
We supported this legislation until Sen. Brandt Hershman (R-Monticello) added SB 206 and SB 410 to it in his committee. The original bill was a public power study for NIPSCO electric.
2007 Voting Records of the Indiana General Assembly and 2005 Contributions from Utilities
Vote: P= Pro-consumer A=Anti-consumer X=No-vote % = Pro-consumer percentage
Votes consist of committee and floor votes. Some Representatives have more votes than others because they voted in a committee, or two depending on the bill, and on the floor.
In general, votes in a particular column mean:
The first = committee vote
The second = vote out of chamber of origin
The third= vote on conference committee (final vote), if applicable
Campaign contributions: A dash (-) = Rep was not in office in 2005
VOTES AS OF MARCH 30, 2007 (Session ended last week in April)
Representative |
Town |
1722 |
206* |
410 |
525 |
1824 |
% |
2005 Utility/Coal Contributions |
Austin |
D-Anderson |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$2500 |
Avery |
D-Evansville |
PA |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
$200 |
Bardon |
D-Indpls |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
0 |
Battles |
D-Vincennes |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
- |
Bell |
R-Avilla |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$750 |
Bischoff |
D-Lawrenceburg |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$2150 |
Borders |
R-Jasonville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$550 |
Borror |
R-Ft. Wayne |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$3850 |
Bosma |
R-Indpls |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$17,700 |
C. Brown |
D-Gary |
PA |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
$1500 |
T. Brown |
R-Crawfordsville |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$200 |
Buck |
R-Kokomo |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2400 |
Buell |
R-Indpls |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$1450 |
Burton |
R-Whiteland |
AA |
A |
|
|
P |
25 |
$5976 |
CandelariaReardon |
D-Munster |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Cheatham |
D-North Vernon |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
- |
Cheney |
D-Portage |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
0 |
Cherry |
R-Greenfield |
AA |
X |
|
|
A |
0 |
0 |
Cochran |
D-New Albany |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
0 |
Crawford |
D-Indpls |
AX |
P* |
|
|
P |
66 |
$2500 |
Crooks |
D-Washington |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
$1550 |
Crouch |
R-Evansville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$1600 |
Davis |
R-Portland |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2050 |
Day |
D-Indpls |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
0 |
Dembowski |
D-Knox |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Denbo |
D-French Lick |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
$1350 |
Dermody |
R-LaPorte |
AA |
A |
|
|
P |
25 |
- |
Dickinson |
D-Indpls |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
- |
Dobis |
D-Merrillville |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
$250 |
Dodge |
R-Pleasant Lake |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$1500 |
Duncan |
R-Greensburg |
AA |
A |
|
|
P |
25 |
$1200 |
Dvorak |
D- South Bend |
XPP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$1750 |
Eberhart |
R-Shelbyville |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
- |
Elrod |
R-Indpls |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Espich |
R-Uniondale |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$6550 |
Foley |
R-Martinsville |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2250 |
Friend |
R-Macy |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$3950 |
Frizzell |
R-Indpls |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$4200 |
Fry |
D-Mishawaka |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$800 |
GiaQuinta |
D-Ft. Wayne |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Goodin |
D-Crothersville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$1050 |
Grubb |
D-Covington |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$2000 |
Gutwein |
R-Rennselaer |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$1900 |
E. Harris |
D-East Chicago |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$450 |
T. Harris |
R-Marion |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2100 |
Herrell |
D-Kokomo |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Hinkle |
R-Indpls |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$900 |
Hoy |
D-Evansville |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
$500 |
Kersey |
D-Terre Haute |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$750 |
Klinker |
D-Lafayette |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$750 |
Knollman |
R- North Liberty |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
- |
Koch |
R-Bedford |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$2650 |
Kuzman |
D-Crown Point |
AX |
P* |
|
|
P |
66 |
0 |
Lawson |
D- Hammond |
PA |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
$750 |
Lehe |
R-Brookston |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$900 |
Leonard |
R-Huntington |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2550 |
Lutz |
R-Anderson |
AAA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$6000 |
Mays |
D-Indpls |
AX |
P* |
|
|
P |
66 |
$1500 |
McClain |
R-Logansport |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$750 |
Micon |
D-West Lafayette |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$250 |
Moses |
D-Ft. Wayne |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
$850 |
Murphy |
R-Indpls |
AA |
X |
|
|
P |
33 |
$5150 |
Neese |
R-Elkhart |
AXA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2300 |
Niezgodski |
D- South Bend |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
- |
Noe |
R-Inpls |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$1200 |
Orentlicher |
D-Indpls |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$500 |
Oxley |
D-English |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$2650 |
Pelath |
D-Michigan City |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$1500 |
Pflum |
D-Milton |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$500 |
Pierce |
D-Bloominton |
PP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$1450 |
Pond |
R-Ft. Wayne |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$250 |
Porter |
D-Indpls |
XP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$1300 |
Reske |
D-Pendleton |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$1250 |
Richardson |
R-Noblesville |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$1850 |
Ripley |
R-Monroe |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$850 |
Robertson |
D-Depauw |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
$1000 |
Ruppel |
R-N. Manchester |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2225 |
Saunders |
R-Lewisville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$1750 |
M. Smith |
R-Columbus |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
- |
V. Smith |
D-Gary |
AP |
P* |
|
|
P |
75 |
0 |
Soliday |
R-Valparaiso |
AAA |
A |
|
|
P |
20 |
- |
Stemler |
D-Jeffersonville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
- |
Stevenson |
D-Highland |
AAA |
P* |
|
|
P |
40 |
$3550 |
Stilwell |
D-Boonville |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$6950 |
Stutzman |
R-Howe |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$2950 |
Summers |
D-Indpls |
XP |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
0 |
Thomas |
R-Brazil |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
33 |
- |
Thompson |
R-Lizton |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2000 |
Tincher |
D-Terre Haute |
XA |
P* |
|
|
P |
66 |
0 |
Torr |
R-Carmel |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2050 |
Turner |
R-Marion |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$5550 |
Tyler |
D-Muncie |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
0 |
Ulmer |
R-Goshen |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
0 |
Van Haaften |
D-Mount Vernon |
AA |
P* |
|
|
P |
50 |
$750 |
Walorski |
R-Lakeville |
PA |
A |
|
|
A |
25 |
$1000 |
Welch |
D-Bloomington |
AX |
P* |
|
|
X |
50 |
$1400 |
Whetstone |
R-Brownsburg |
AA |
P* |
|
|
A |
25 |
$3600 |
Wolkins |
R-Winona Lake |
AA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2950 |
Bauer (Speaker) |
D- South Bend |
XX |
P* |
|
|
P |
100 |
$7500 |
R. Behning |
R-Indpls |
AAA |
A |
|
|
A |
0 |
$2400 |
* Supported SB206 as a vehicle for an RES, however significant improvement is needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by: cacadmin on Thursday, May 03, 2007
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |