Vol. 3, No. 23
.jpg)
October 1, 2006
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Feature Story:
Campaign Finance Reform --
The Debate Is Joined
A Perception Of Wrongdoing Flows
Through Nevada Elections
by Johnny Gunn
As we move toward the 2007 Legislative Session, the word reform is not bandied about as much as many had hoped. There are so many flaws in Nevada's election and campaign funding laws that one would think at least one major candidate for office would want to make a name by addressing the issues. Over the next few weeks leading up to November's General Election, we will take a look at some of the most obvious problems and make suggestions that might be debated in Carson City.
Judicial Campaigns
We invite your participation in this exercise and look forward to your opinions. Currently the funding of campaigns for judicial candidates is being debated from the Supreme Court down to Justice Court, and there have been a few simplistic suggestions brought forward, none seriously addressing the question of whether or not Nevada's judiciary is for sale to the highest bidder (contributor). As every wet behind the ears attorney in Nevada knows immediately on being accepted to practice, campaign contributions to judges in the district are not only welcome, they are all but mandatory. More than one judge has been found to favor the higher contributor when faced with two contributing attorneys on the same case.
Judicial canon demands that judges then make it known in open court that attorney X and attorney Y currently with a case before the bench have contributed to the judge's campaign. Doesn't it seem strange to you that this is rarely done? A simple change would answer the question. If a judge attempts to hear a case in which an attorney, either for or against, has contributed to his campaign, he is to be charged with a felony, dismissed from the bench, and fined $10,000. Attorneys would save thousands and the judiciary would act judicial.
In a three-part series earlier this year the Los Angeles Times blistered many judges in Clark County, but the problem is not limited to just the largest county in the state. Taking a look at campaign contributions for just about every judge in the state one will find list after list of attorneys in the specific area to be served by the magistrate in question. What's worse, in many cases the judge running is not being challenged, and still accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from attorneys. Buying justice is not one of the traditions of America.
Some ideas we would like to see discussed in legislative chambers and in these pages:
Judicial candidates cannot sit in judgment on matters involving any contributor.
Judges cannot hear any case in which one or more of the attorneys has been a campaign contributor of the judge.
Full disclosure is required. If there is no disclosure, it is a presumptive bribe with felony penalties and removal from office. Similar to DUI prosecutions: He might cause an accident so penalize him for taking the chance.
Records of campaign contributions and the checking account kept to maintain them should be public record. This is in addition to Contribution and Expense reports mandated by law.
Any violation of the judicial canons of ethics should be grounds for recusal.
Contribution and Expense Reports
That brings us to one of the primary problems with Nevada's election laws, the reports that must be filed by politicos of all levels. The Secretary of State of the Great State of Nevada is also the chief elections officer and is mandated to keep these records, make them public, and charge those that don't follow the letter of the law with campaign violations. Our current Secretary of State doesn't understand the NRS that covers his responsibilities, therefore hundreds of campaign violators have never been charged with any crime. The reports are lacking in every respect, and if one wishes to understand any particular candidate's contributions and expenses, the project will take an immense amount of time.
The reports are often hand written, sometimes in pencil for heaven's sake, and follow no known data entry form. Alphabetizing doesn't exist. Even such a simple thing as putting contributors' names in alphabetical order would clean up the procedure. When companies and corporations make contributions, those individuals associated with the company or corporation are not listed. As has been pointed out so many times, one person with a series of corporations can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign and unless you know the connection you would not know that one person had done that. This flaw alone would alter elections in Nevada if it was cured.
Federal judicial challenges have made some ideas impossible. For instance, Political Action Committees (PAC) can contribute to individual candidates. But the law could be changed to demand that the leadership of that PAC be listed. Again, and often, several PACs will be driven by one or two people with similar philosophies, and hundreds of thousands of dollars reach a candidate. Open government is a chore to create it seems.
Some ideas we would like to see discussed in legislative chambers and in these pages:
Contribution and Expense reports must be created in a known and accepted database form. Typed and in alphabetical order. Businesses must have owners and managers listed. Corporations must have managers and stockholders listed. This way no single developer for instance would be able to hide behind corporate listings and we would all know how much money someone is contributing. This does not limit the contribution it simply makes it known. The worst offenders of this practice are gaming corporations, land developers, and speculators. You have to believe that the thriving $kindustry is also heavily involved.
Campaign bank accounts must be public documents whether or not a candidate has an opponent in any particular election. At this time accounts are off limits to all of us.
Better still, when a campaign is over, that bank account must be dissolved. Any money left must be returned to contributors.
Campaign expenses must be detailed. Simply listing an advertising agency or one of the so-called kingmakers in Nevada is not what the law intended. If an agency spends $10,000, what was the money spent on? Fishing trips to Baja? One can't tell by reading the current reports. One candidate (Dean Heller) went all the way through the Primary without spending a dime on insurance. All his workers went without any kind of insurance. At least according to filed C&E reports.
The burden of filing correct and legal reports is on the candidate. Blaming some obscure public accountant for a candidate's illegal activity should not be tolerated.
It should be the responsibility of the chief elections officer to maintain accurate records and bring charges when campaign law is violated. Interestingly this is in the current law today, but has not been followed in the last several years.
If campaign finance laws are known to have been violated and the chief elections officer does nothing about it, that officer should be charged with a felony and removed from office. This should be under provisions mandated to the Attorney General.
Because of the failure of Nevada's election laws the possibility of corruption at the highest levels is very real. Perception plays a large part in many people's thinking and the perception of Nevada lawmakers, judges, and representatives being criminals is there to be seen. Every C&E report gives the perception that something is being hidden, and many believe something is being hidden. Government is supposed to be acting in our best interests, not in the best interest of the highest bidder. If that bidder must have his name prominently displayed on public records, the perception becomes reality and the voter has the opportunity to understand the candidate's funding.
There is more and as the weeks flow by toward November 7 we will discuss the flaws in Nevada Election Law. The Nevada Observer would enjoy very much hearing your thoughts on this issue. The perception of a purchased judiciary, of candidates hiding behind corporate money-bags, of money being more important than service to the citizenry are issues that should be debated by every candidate. If you are a voter and want your thoughts known, put them in an e-mail right away. If you are a candidate and wish to join the debate, we welcome your thoughts.
•••
______________________________________________________________________________________