• Indiana University has signaled a major shift in focus, prioritizing its football program.
• Coach Curt Cignetti signed a new eight-year, $93 million contract extension.
• Cignetti stated his intention to retire as a Hoosier, easing concerns he might leave for another job.

BLOOMINGTON — Indiana is a football school now. Adjust accordingly.

Of the many things Curt Cignetti’s new eight-year, $93 million contract signaled when it broke abruptly Thursday afternoon, understand that first. And recognize it as most important.

This place that has been for so long synonymous with basketball — so smitten with the game it learned to love during the cold, dark winter between harvest and planting — is now all in on football at a level there’s really no going back from.

“I couldn’t be more proud to be a Hoosier, and I plan on retiring as a Hoosier,” Cignetti said in a short video posted to IU football’s Twitter account Thursday. “The way that this state has embraced us and our success in football has meant more to me than anything else. So, I just wanted to get on camera and let you know that Curt Cignetti is gonna work daily to make Indiana the best it can be.”

His words firmed up what his department’s dollars, his donors’ investment and his team’s performances have all illustrated across the last 22 months:

Indiana has been completely recoded. Football comes first here, and football is flying.

Cignetti’s new contract — negotiated in the shadow of a coaching carousel expected to be among the busiest and most robust in recent memory — likely ensures he is going nowhere.

It reflects years of steady, stubborn investment in football from an athletic department and a university assured for a generation the sport was a hopeless enterprise in this part of the world. Thanks to both Cignetti’s success, and the sport’s reimagined conventions around roster planning, construction and development, that old wisdom now looks foolish.

Saturday’s win at Oregon, arguably the most important and impressive in program history, stands as testament to Cignetti’s ability.

But it also reflects a decade and a half spent shoring up the foundations of a football program athletic director Scott Dolson — like Fred Glass before him — believed was capable of this. All it needed was to hand the right tools to the right coach.

The winning side of ballot initiatives typically outspends opponents by millions.

It is campaign season for Indiana’s chief elections officer. Republican Secretary of State Diego Morales has become a lightning rod for public anger over the perceived unresponsiveness and corruption of our state government. Some of his opponents have suggested citizen-led ballot initiatives would help fix that. 

Indiana does not allow citizen-led ballot initiatives to change the state constitution. Instead, the legislature must pass proposed amendments as resolutions two years in a row.

In theory, Indiana’s system of so-called “legislative referendums” should limit the ability of corporations with deep pockets to take advantage of voters. However, many people no longer trust the state government to safeguard the process.

It would be easier and more effective to fix that by reforming the legislature rather than making the constitutional changes needed for citizen-led ballot initiatives.

Ballot initiatives would open the door to more lobbyist control

“People feel disconnected with our government in Indianapolis right now,” Beau Bayh, who is seeking the Democratic Party nomination for secretary of state, told me. “They feel like it’s unresponsive to their needs … I have faith in the people of our state to decide the biggest issues of the day.”

Blythe Potter, a Democrat, and Jamie Reitenour, a Republican, are also running for secretary of state. Both also support citizen-led ballot initiatives.

“We will never have a perfect system,” Bayh added. “Even if we don’t have the citizen-led ballot referendums, which I’m in favor of, corporations and wealthy individuals are still going to contribute to our legislators.”

IndyStar’s Marissa Meador, in fact, recently reported on the cozy relationship energy company lobbyists and donors have with several state legislators. Lobbyists spent over $729,000 this year to develop relationships with legislators and millions more to get them elected. 

Ballot initiatives, however, have less stringent regulations than traditional political campaigns.

“Ballot measures are commonly associated with weak political parties, dark money, national single interest groups and disregard for centuries old deliberative legislative process,” Lindsey Eaton, a spokesperson for Morales, told me. “Indiana has a well-functioning republic form of government. We trust voters to elect representatives that will govern in their best interests.”

That is largely true. Charitable nonprofits are allowed to contribute to ballot initiative campaigns and are not required to disclose their donors. Social welfare nonprofits, which can include political advocacy, face no limitations on contributions to ballot initiative campaigns.

A quick analysis of ballot initiatives passed in 2023 shows the winning side frequently spent millions more.

In Ohio, a recent ballot initiative to enshrine protections for abortion in the state constitution was an extreme example of corporate influence over public questions. The Sixteen Thirty Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Open Society Policy Center, all based outside of Ohio, donated a collective $10.8 million to support the ballot initiative. In total, supporters of the initiative raised $19 million more than opponents.

Briggs: Beau Bayh on Indiana secretary of state run: ‘We deserve a better type of politics’

Bayh blamed the influence of money on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

“I share your concern, just like most Americans, just like most Hoosiers about the role that money plays in our politics,” he told me. “The Supreme Court has decided … that corporations have First Amendment rights to involve themselves in these things. I can’t change that as the secretary of state.”

Voters don’t understand ballot questions

Money aside, it is unrealistic to expect the average voter to understand most public questions.

David Shelton, a Republican challenging Morales for the secretary of state nomination, told me the author of a referendum can shape voters’ perception of the issue through confusing word choices.

“People would vote for it, not realizing that they removed the cardinal as the state bird and … voted in the stink bug,” Shelton said.

If you look at Indiana’s last 15 legislative referendums, voters haven’t rejected one since 1990. The most controversial one since then came last year, when only 54% of voters supported eliminating a state office that no longer existed from the line of gubernatorial succession. 

Stewart: Indiana should ban international students from China, other foreign adversaries

I worked at the state Senate at the time and several friends told me they had no idea about the public question beforehand and had no idea what it was asking in the voting booth. Studies suggest that’s a common experience.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only 24% of legislative referendums and 30% of initiatives have failed nationwide since 1990. If you look solely at attempted constitutional amendments, only 22% of legislative referendums and 17.7% of initiatives have failed since 1990. 

Studies have shown low-information voters tend to vote yes on ballot initiatives that are easy to understand and no on ballot initiatives with complicated wording. 

Big spenders opposing initiatives also have a clear advantage: Research shows it’s far more effective to attempt to persuade voters to reject a measure than to support one. Even small changes in how a question is worded or where it appears on the ballot can significantly affect the outcome.

Stewart: Indiana will pull retirement investments from Hong Kong after IndyStar column

Bayh acknowledged these concerns but suggested there are ways to fix the problem.

“If it is possible to have some type of bipartisan or nonpartisan group that looks at these ballot measures before they go in front of people, it would be a great thing,” Bayh told me. “Let’s work these in a fair way. Let’s get support from people on both sides of an issue with the wording of things and make everyone comfortable with it.”

That bipartisan or nonpartisan group responsible for safeguarding the process, in theory, is the Indiana General Assembly, but the control of party leadership over the legislature admittedly makes it difficult for even broadly popular legislation to pass.

Advocates for representative government should reform the legislature instead

An easier fix to unrepresentative government would involve reforming our legislature. Unlike citizen-led ballot initiatives, many proposed ideas would not require a constitutional amendment.

For one, legislative committee chairs could be elected by committee members, rather than by party leaders. That would make them less accountable to party leaders and lobbyists and more accountable to the committee members they serve. 

On many occasions, legislation passes either the Indiana House of Representatives or Senate with wide support, only to not receive a hearing in another chamber because of one committee chair.

Sometimes this leads to public outrage, such as when Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, held up an immigration enforcement bill this year. Other times, bills die without much controversy. 

Committee members could be held accountable to the legislature as a whole if individual legislators were able to bypass the committee entirely through a discharge petition. 

These petitions usually require the signature of a majority of legislators in a given chamber and would bring legislation directly to the chamber for consideration. 

This is possible in the U.S. House of Representatives, where a petition was recently filed by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, to release the Epstein Files.

Many supporters of citizen-led ballot initiatives sincerely view them as a way to bypass the perceived corruption of elected officials. They are unlikely to succeed anytime soon, though, and would be better off advocating for reforming the legislature.

If legislators want to regain public trust, they also have an incentive to make themselves more accountable to their constituents.

Contact Jacob Stewart at 317-444-4683 or jacob.stewart@indystar.com. Follow him on X, Instagram and TikTok.