"TWAS HIM WHO STOLE"

White Hats And Black Hats Don't Determine Good Guys And Bad

Neither Do Official Campaign Finance Records

by Johnny Gunn

(Ed. Note: This is part three of our continuing series on Campaign Finance Law in Nevada. To see part one, click here. To see part two, click here.)

As written, Nevada's campaign finance laws might as well be hot marshmallows in between graham crackers for all the good they do. The Secretary of State says he's helpless to audit the financial records of various candidates as they are filed, county clerks are reluctant to release information, and rarely question the validity of reports filed with them, and candidates and office holders are fully aware of this, thus not paying much attention to disclosure statements that are filed under their signature.

The main reason for this problem is the general citizenry. Apathy on the part of the average Nevadan has brought this sad state of affairs to this level, a level at which candidates must be challenged by a citizen, not by the person elected to oversee elections. All campaign finance disclosure statements are not filed with the Secretary of State, either. Many politicians at a local level simply file with a county clerk, and often, one can't get on the Internet to see those forms. County clerks insist it is not their responsibility to determine the truthfulness of the reports.

It's a grand circle in which no one is responsible. As the old joke goes, "It didn't happen on my shift."

Would having to drive to the county seat in order to see a disclosure form be a burden on a tax paying, registered voter? In Elko County, that drive could be a hundred miles or more. In Nye County, several hundred miles. Nye County, the largest county in area in the state, and interestingly, the third largest county in the country, doesn't maintain these records on a web site according to County Clerk Merlino. Tonopah is the County Seat, so if you live in Gabbs, far to the north, or Pahrump, far to the south, it would be a burden to see the contributions or expenses filed by a commissioner or the sheriff or the district attorney. And every politician is aware of this.

White Pine County Clerk Donna Bath doesn't maintain those records on a web site either, and neither does Frances Gale, Eureka County Clerk. (Ed. Note: Nevada Observer Publisher David Thompson has written a wonderful opinion piece on the problems of campaign law reform in Nevada. Click here.)

The Observer plans on spending a great deal of time this campaign year attempting to follow up on financial disclosure by candidates. One area we plan to look at is how various special interest groups get around the $10,000 figure. By law, a person, company, or corporation is limited to giving a candidate no more than $10,000 during an election cycle, but this can be circumvented easily. To wit:

Mr. A who is general manager at Casino B gives his $10,000. Casino B also gives $10,000. Mr. A's wife gives $10,000 as does the chairman of the board and his wife, and each of the managers in the casino, and their wives, and of course, the food and beverage manager and his wife. In reality, Casino B is capable of funding a campaign to the tune of a hundred thousand dollars or more.

It's not just casinos that do this. Developers jump in the middle of races the same way. And if you want to scare yourself silly, look at how attorneys flock to the front in funding Supreme Court races. Casinos, developers, attorney firms and other special interest groups love to fund Supreme Court races. In a special release by the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) (Click Here) called "The Supreme Jackpot," it was pointed out that of the groups that donated the most to Supreme Court races, they also had cases before the court.

In the PLAN release, of the top ten donors since 1998, eight had cases before the court. The top five donor groups were gaming interests; the next five were attorneys and lobbyists. The top donor group was Mandalay Bay, which donated a total of $126,500 to various Supreme Court races, and had business before the court.

Retiring Supreme Court Justice Miriam Shearing is one who supports changes to the finance laws as they pertain to the high court. She supported legislation that would minimize the collection of contributions by establishing a separate filing period for judicial candidates, and that would preclude a candidate from accepting funds unless the justice was challenged.

Justice Mark Gibbons collected $278,330 for his 2002 election campaign. He ran uncontested. Where is that quarter of a million dollars? Why was it accepted? There is nothing in the law to preclude this action. The law to control that kind of campaign finance funding failed in the legislature.

During the 2003 legislative session, after two special sessions, when Governor Kenny Guinn filed a complaint with the Supreme Court to force the legislature to abandon state law and pass his budget by less than a two thirds majority, the court did just that. Did hundreds of thousands of dollars donated by the gaming industry contribute to the high court's decision?

The average amount of money that was raised by justices seeking election in 1998 was $172,000. Just four years later, 2002, the average amount raised had climbed to $313,000.

The purpose behind these features on campaign finance laws in Nevada is to make you aware that if someone were to be unscrupulous, politics would be a fine home from which to work. You make the decision every time you enter the polling place. You can also help others make their decision by voicing your concern at every opportunity.