Contribution And Expense Reports: Should You Care? Do You?

by Johnny Gunn

(This is the first in a continuing series of articles dealing with campaign finance law in Nevada. Look for future articles on a regular basis)

If you are a candidate for elected office or running a Political Action Committee (PAC), you are required by law to file Contribution and Expense reports (C&Es) with the Secretary of State. There are laws that tell you when and how to file these reports, and tell you that if you fib, you might be called on the carpet under penalty of perjury. The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) tell you that if you take or give more money than the law allows, you are committing a felony. That's right; a felony.

There are a couple of serious problems with the entire program, and the problems boil down to those elected to public office unwilling to put teeth in campaign finance laws that they then will have to follow. As it stands right now, unless someone files a complaint, even if the Secretary of State (SOS) knows a report is wrong, he can't do anything about it.

In Secretary of State Dean Heller's own words, "This office is not statutorily provided with the authority to perform an audit of a candidate's C&E report." There are basically two parts to that problem. The fact the SOS can't audit, and worse, almost no one ever sees the reports, and if they do, they can't fathom the huge amount of information reported. Contribution and Expense reports for state office candidates and ballot questions are on file at www.sos.state.nv.us, and for local offices, can be found at county and city clerk web sites, or in their office files. These are public documents that must be made available upon request. There are few requests.

On the subject of the money itself, when a candidate or PAC fills out the form, there is no slot to put in a beginning balance. In other words, if a candidate begins his campaign with $100,000 no one would know this. At the end of a campaign, there is no place to log in an ending balance, either. Heller has lobbied hard to get this information required, and no politicians seem willing to take the concept to the floor of the Nevada Legislative Galleries.

Heller is asking that candidates voluntarily do this, and only a couple has said, "they might." In Heller's words, "Any accountant would automatically include this information on any financial document. This is a basic accounting principle."

One change to the campaign finance law that has taken place is yearly reporting. Candidate and elected officials, even those not running in a current race, are required to file annual Contribution and Expense Reports.

How It Works

Reports from Las Vegas in the past few weeks have indicated that an assemblyman may have been taking money from his campaign fund for his personal use. This is a violation of campaign law, but when the reports first surfaced, SOS Heller was emphatic in saying unless a complaint was filed, he was helpless to do anything about it.

On or about Thursday, February 12, Vanessa Nordyke filed a complaint with the secretary, saying she believed Republican Assemblyman Chad Christensen violated state campaign finance law. She said she believed he had paid himself $16,000 from his reelection fund without disclosing how the money was spent. Nordyke is a registered voter in Christensen's District 13.

The Secretary of State has accepted the complaint and forwarded a letter to Christensen seeking answers to the complaint. According to Steve George, Heller's spokesman, Christensen will be given time to answer the charges, and if "the response is sufficient, or otherwise, will determine whether or not the case will be turned over to the Nevada Division of Investigations." George said the case could go directly to the Attorney General for investigation.

According to the complaint, Christensen made payments to himself from his campaign fund in amounts ranging from $700 to $5,000 over a one month period. On his C&E, there are no listings of loans or contributions to or from himself.

Nevada Revised Statutes 294A.100 describes how candidates can receive money for their campaigns. A candidate can receive $5,000 for a primary election, and another $5,000 for the general election, from individuals, companies, and corporations. "A person who willfully violates any provision of this section is guilty of a category E felony ..."

Rather plain language, yet reading through various candidates' C&E Reports, we find contributions of $10,000 regularly. According to Heller, "A candidate can receive a lump sum contribution of $10,000; $5,000 for the primary, another $5,000 for the general. If a candidate loses in the primary, he/she must return the other $5,000 to the contributor." He sites a Secretary of State Interpretation, 97-2 for his statement. This has not seen validation by a court.

Heller went on to say, "If there is not primary, the candidate can only receive a maximum contribution of $5,000."

A Level Of Cynicism

As our headline indicates, there are many that don't see a problem, or simply don't care that a problem may exist. Often, while reading through these horribly dull reports, we find a listing something to the effect, "personal loan, $40,000." Sometimes this comes from someone that otherwise you might think simply wouldn't have $40,000 sitting around in an open account. The problem with the way the reports are mandated, nothing needs be proved. No bank records need be attached to a contribution report form, no letter of intent, nothing.

A simple statement alleging the information is correct under penalty of perjury, and everything is fine. David Howard is a former Reno City Councilman, worked extensively with Bill Swackhammer when Swack was SOS, and is probably as familiar with C&E reports as anyone in the state. He's had to fill them out, he's had to receive them, and he doesn't believe the reports are of any significance. We should add here, Howard also has done lobbying for issues and businesses.

"The man or woman on the street has little interest," he says, and he's probably right. By and large, the greatest percentage of the population has never seen one of these reports, and wouldn't take the time to pour over one if the opportunity presented itself.

In other words, if someone had a desire to not follow the rules in their campaign financing, more than likely, no one would be the wiser. Howard says, "only newshounds of questionable good sense and energy are interested in the reports." Unfortunately, he's probably correct, and because of that, we'll never know just how many upstanding politicians really aren't standing quite as tall as we think they are.

The questions that need to be answered, in this reporter's mind, are simple. If we accept that public office is for sale, why bother with the reports?

If we believe in the value of honest political races not corroded with affluence, why aren't Nevada's campaign laws designed to force this level of honesty?

And, if an office isn't for sale, why are special interests so willing to spend so much money to get "their" person elected?

During the next several issues of the Observer, we'll be looking at some of those questions along with the views of politicians, lobbyists, and the general public. Are the C&Es important? David Howard doesn't think so, Dean Heller does. Are revisions of the statutes important to campaign financing?

Sometimes, the questions are the easiest part of this. Finding the answers will take some diligence.