Still no green light for largest public subsidy in state history as Legislature hits adjournment day
A small army of lobbyists for film studios could be seen entering the Senate Democrats office after the lawmakers adjourned for the night. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
The Hollywood movie studios seeking $1.4 billion in transferable tax breaks over 15 years have clearly not received a red carpet rollout from the Nevada State Legislature.
Assembly Bill 238, which proposes a twelvefold expansion of the state's transferable film tax credit program, passed the Assembly late Friday in a 22-20 vote, the thinnest margin allowable since a tie would mean not passing. That left the high profile bill three days to pass the Senate. However, two whole days came and went, leaving the bill with less than 24 hours to make it across the finish line.
The Senate Finance Committee on Sunday appeared to be gearing up for a late night hearing on the film tax credit bill, but instead the full Senate withdrew the bill from the committee and allowed it to take a procedural step it needed in the full chamber.
The bill would massively expand Nevada's film tax credit program to support the build out and operation of a 31-acre film studio currently referred to as the Summerlin Production Studios Project (after the Las Vegas neighborhood where it would be located). Hollywood giants Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery are attached to the project. Howard Hughes Holdings is developing.
A small army of lobbyists for film studios could be seen entering the Senate Democrats office after the lawmakers adjourned for the night.
Nevada's film tax credit program is currently capped at $10 million per year. AB 238 would raise that cap to $120 million per year, for 15 years, beginning in 2028. The majority of those tax credits, $95 million per year, would be reserved for productions at the Summerlin studio; $25 million per year would be for productions not attached to the studio.
Altogether, that's equivalent to $1.8 billion in public subsidies for the television and film industry. If approved by the Senate and signed into law by Gov. Joe Lombardo, the legislation will be the largest public subsidy approved by the State of Nevada, surpassing the $1.25 billion approved by lawmakers in 2014 for Tesla Motors.
While tax credits aren't issued to companies until they prove they've met the qualifications for them, the state must treat them as 'negative revenue' when forecasting expected state revenue. That means they do impact the state budgeting process.
Here's where other high-profile bills stand going into the last day of the session:
All five state budget bills have all passed the Nevada Legislature. Senate Bill 502, known as the capital improvement program (CIP) bill, crossed the legislative finish line on Sunday. The CIP bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority, so it is often used by the minority party as leverage in broader negotiations. That was the case in the 2023 session, when the CIP bill failed to pass the Senate before midnight on the last day. That forced a one-day special session.
The state's other four budget bills (Senate Bill 500, Assembly Bill 591, Assembly Bill 592, and Senate Bill 501) all passed the Legislature within the last week and have been signed by the governor.
Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Gov. Joe Lombardo reached a compromise on their competing omnibus education bills.
Cannizzaro's Senate Bill 460 was amended to include components of Lombardo's Assembly Bill 584, including his proposal to establish a statewide accountability system and a salary incentive program for educators and administrators. Components of Cannizzaro's bill that made it past the amendment include revised evaluation procedures for educators and administrators and additional transparency and assessment requirements for schools receiving funding through the state's quasi-voucher system, known as Opportunity Scholarships.
The Senate unanimously passed the bill Sunday, and the bill now heads to the Assembly.
Cannizzaro said the bill represents the state taking 'significant strides' toward accountability and transparency. Senate Minority Leader Robin Titus also spoke on the floor in support.
Also on the education front: Senate Bill 161, a Clark County Education Association priority bill carried by state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen (D-Las Vegas), passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support and was signed by Lombardo in the last week of the session. The bill establishes an expedited arbitration process for teachers unions and school districts, and, perhaps more consequentially, establishes a pathway for K-12 public school teachers to legally go on strike.
With the passage of SB 161, CCEA will withdraw a ballot measure it had qualified for the 2028 general election ballot. That ballot measure, if approved by voters, would have given teachers the right to strike. The teachers union had previously said it was prepared to defend the ballot measure next year but would prefer to bypass it through legislative action.
It marks the second time the union has pulled this move. In 2021, CCEA qualified two ballot measures — one to raise the gaming tax, another to raise the sales tax — only to pull them after the Legislature established a new mining tax that directly funds the state's K-12 per pupil education fund.
Assembly Bill 540, Lombardo's housing bill, is currently in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. It has received a hearing but no action has been taken. The bill has already cleared the full Assembly.
Senate Bill 457, Lombardo's criminal justice bill, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday after receiving a major amendment. The bill needs to pass the full Senate and the full Assembly.
Senate Bill 495, Lombardo's health care bill, is prepped for a vote by the full Senate. It will need to be approved by the Senate, then by the Assembly.
Senate Bill 461, Lombardo's economic development bill, is currently in the Senate Revenue and Economic Development Committee. It received a hearing but no action has been taken.
On Friday, a banking bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager fell short of the required two-thirds approval it needed to pass the chamber. Assembly Bill 500 would allow for payment banks, a new type of financial institution that focuses solely on payment processing rather than lending.
The Assembly vote was 25-17, a simple majority but three votes short of the two-thirds it needed because it would raise state revenue. On Sunday, AB500 returned to the Assembly floor with an amendment that removed the two-thirds requirement. The amendment was adopted but, in a bizarre turn of events, the vote failed 20-22. The vote was attempted a third time and also failed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk Here are five big questions about what comes next. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Posts Totally Misleading Video Edit of Tulsi Gabbard
A White House social media account has posted a highly misleading video of Tulsi Gabbard in which she appears to bolster the argument that Iran is getting dangerously close to developing a nuclear bomb. In reality, she had just told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the U.S. intel community did not believe Iran was building a nuclear weapon. The edited clip begins just after she had made that explicitly clear. She went on to say that there were nonetheless some indications of a shift in rhetoric. The clip, shared by @RapidResponse47, begins with Gabbard saying, 'In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.' She continues: 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' The decision to use a clip of Gabbard to make the case that Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapon came after Trump lost his cool with his director of national intelligence for criticizing the case for war. In her March testimony, Gabbard had severely downplayed the threat. 'The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,' she said. 'The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.' Donald Trump has publicly dismissed Gabbard's influence on his decision-making regarding any role the U.S. would have in aiding Israel against Iran. 'I don't care what she said,' he responded when a reporter asked him about her testimony earlier this year. 'I think they were very close to having [a nuclear weapon].' Gabbard's video a few weeks ago claiming that the 'political elite and warmongers' were 'carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers' didn't sit well with him, either. 'I don't think he dislikes Tulsi as a person… But certainly the video made him not super hot on her… and he doesn't like it when people are off message,' a senior administration official told Politico. As his party's hawks fought a very public battle with non-interventionists, Trump said on Wednesday that he's still open to negotiating with Iran. At the same time, he said he was considering military action. 'I like to make a final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change,' he said about any order bringing U.S. forces into the region.
Hamilton Spectator
37 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes , as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation . The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
