The sweepstakes gaming industry will very likely lose one of its most vocal legislative allies in the upcoming general election next month.
Indiana incumbent Sen. Ron Alting is running for re-election in District 22. He has publicly backed regulating the sweeps casinos industry as opposed to banning it — one of the few lawmakers around the United States to take such a stance not behind closed doors.
However, concerns over Alting’s judgment and cognitive functioning have made it highly unlikely the Republican Senator gets his eighth term.
No more active campaigning from Alting
On Oct. 7, Alting announced he was stepping back from active campaigning while undergoing medical evaluation and treatment. His statement followed reports alleging shoplifting incidents at Walmart stores in Lafayette and Monticello.
In his announcement, Alting acknowledged experiencing “concerning changes” in his judgment and cognitive functioning, saying he had done things that were wrong and out of character.
Despite suspending campaign activity, Alting confirmed he intends to remain on the Nov. 3 ballot. Local Republican leadership has said it is too early to determine what happens if he wins and subsequently decides to leave office.
His re-election prospects are now murky at best. Alting has advantages as a longtime incumbent, including established name recognition and a substantial fundraising operation. But the allegations, his disclosed health concerns, and his withdrawal from campaigning bring substantial uncertainty.
Alting’s opponent is Democratic challenger Natasha Baker, a teacher from Battle Ground.
“For nearly three decades, our community has trusted Sen. Alting to represent us,” Baker said in a statement following Alting’s announcement. “Public service requires honesty, accountability, sound judgment and the ability to consistently show up and make decisions on behalf of the people you represent.
“I wish Sen. Alting and his family well as they navigate these difficult times and the next chapter in their lives.”
Alting favored regulating and taxing sweeps casinos
Indiana is significant in the world of sweepstakes gaming because it’s the state that came the closest to actually regulating sweeps casinos instead of banning it. That’s because several Indiana lawmakers were extremely vocal about their opposition to a ban, including Alting.
In January 2026, Alting became the Senate sponsor of House Bill 1052, which was written to ban dual-currency and multi-currency gaming at sweepstakes casinos. (In other words: No more Sweeps Coin gameplay.)
In February, however, Alting prepared an amendment for HB1052 that would have regulated and taxed sweeps casinos in Indiana. But he never officially presented the amendment after receiving pushback from legislative leadership.
“Let me just say, I offered the amendment for the sweepstakes, which regulated and taxed it, that I thought would be appropriate,” Alting said in February during a committee hearing for HB1052, “but got a tremendous amount of feedback of ‘No go,’ particularly with leadership with both chambers as well, it was really going to be dead on arrival back to Public Policy members of the House of Representatives.
“In lieu of time in this short, short session and trying to beat this thing to death in a conference committee, I chose it was just best to listen to my colleagues to not call the amendment. … There will be another session that we’ll see what we can do.”
HB1052 eventually passed and became law in Indiana. The only significant change made to its original version is that offering dual-currency sweeps gaming will be prosecuted as a civil offense. Originally, it was written as a criminal offense.
Other anti-ban voices in Indiana
Although lawmakers ultimately passed HB1052, the debate revealed that Alting was far from alone in believing regulation deserved consideration.
During the House Public Policy Committee’s initial hearing in January, several lawmakers questioned whether banning sweepstakes casinos was the right approach, while others argued the issue deserved more discussion before the state made a sweeping policy change.
Rep. Steve Bartels led the push for regulation. Unlike Alting, he actually introduced an amendment that would have established a licensing framework with a $100,000 registration fee and oversight from the Indiana attorney general. Bartels argued that the state could protect consumers and collect revenue without banning an industry operating in what he described as a legally permissible space under existing law.
He also warned against what he called a “knee-jerk reaction,” suggesting Indiana should consider whether sweepstakes casinos could eventually fit into a broader iGaming market.
“We keep saying there’s no violation of our current law and it’s odd,” he said, “that we have an agency wishing to pass iLotto owned by a private company outside the state of Indiana that now most of these sweepstakes are outside Indiana — but we’re going to ban them without trying to regulate them first?”
Rep. Jim Lucas was even more direct, declaring himself “100% against just outright banning them.” He argued that lawmakers should find a way to regulate the industry rather than pick winners and losers.
“I’d like to think that we’re here to be fair and equitable,” Lucas said.
Rep. Cory Criswell also supported Bartels’ regulatory approach, pointing to the potential for state revenue and fairer operating conditions.
Why Alting’s re-election matters for sweeps industry
Ultimately, these reservations did not prevent Indiana from passing the ban. But the debate demonstrated that opposition to the ban extended beyond Alting. Even those on the side of a sweeps ban, including Rep. Ethan Manning, the lead author of the bill, don’t seem diametrically opposed to sweeps casinos. Manning’s main stance was that Indiana needs to regulate real-money iGaming before it can even consider regulating sweeps gaming.
That means the sweeps gaming industry would benefit from as many advocates as possible in the Indiana Legislature when the day eventually comes where the state legalizes iGaming and, perhaps, attention then gets turned to re-evaluating regulating sweeps.
Losing Alting, then, removes one of those advocates.