Vol. 4, No. 6
.jpg)
January 15, 2007
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
.
Ethics Legislation Planned
For Upcoming Session
Will Lawmakers Notice?
Will Lawmakers Respond?
The Nevada Center for Public Ethics held an open public meeting in Las Vegas on January 6 in order to discuss proposals they want made part of Nevada Law dealing with the ethical conduct of the state's leaders. For more information on the organization and its plans, go to http://www.nevada-ethics.org/. "Our purpose is to discuss ethics proposals to be considered by the 2007 Nevada legislature.," according to the web site. Dr. Craig Walton of Las Vegas is the president of NCPE. Walton was recently appointed to the judicial review panel that has been created by the Nevada Supreme Court.
Among the proposals to be made to the legislature is one the Nevada Observer has been suggesting for several year. Corporations that give campaign contributions must list their partners and managers. Nevada law is such that Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) are treated the same as individuals as far as contributions to politicians and campaigns are concerned. However, those that own and/or run the corporations do not have to be listed on the contribution reports. This opens the door to the possibility of one person being able to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to individual campaigns.
If developer A has half a dozen or more LLCs and if each LLC contributes the maximum of $10,000, the developer and spouse each contribute $10,000, the only thing the voter would know about is the individual contributions by developer and spouse. This is how the big money contributors in Nevada have ruled elections for decades if not eons. Developers, major casino corporations, and others have decided who our governor will be for years. They decide who will represent us in the legislature, at city council, at county commission.
For this legislation to pass among the 63 stalwarts in Carson City this year would be a miracle of biblical proportions and that fact is more than a shame, it's deceitful. Legislators that will not demand changes such as this proposal do not represent those that voted for them, they represent those that paid for them. Many of the big money interests also pay big bucks to lobbyists, and Nevada's lobby law is almost as bad as its campaign finance law.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, by national standards, Nevada's Lobbyist Disclosure Laws are receiving failing grades (score 53 out of 100). Money paid to lobbyists by their clients is far in excess of the money they spend on legislators in pushing their agendas. Nevada too narrowly defines what a lobbyist is, thereby excluding much lobbying activity from public scrutiny. It requires lobbyists to register, but only if engaging in lobbying activities in the legislative building. It does not require lobbyists to report lobbying-related activities or expenses incurred or paid in the course of lobbying activity everywhere else. The current system does not allow the public to be aware of the impact lobbyist's monies are having on legislation and this is unfair to the citizens of Nevada. the Nevada Center for Public Ethics organization has several proposals that will correct this problem, and that leads us into the concept of financial disclosure.
There is no full financial disclosure in Nevada, there is limited disclosure and much of what is left out are the kinds of information that voters need to know to make educated and thoughtful decisions at the poll. Just within the last few months Nevada elected representatives have received gifts to go to boxing matches free, received gifts to sit in box seats at NASCAR races free, have attended events paid for by mortgage and insurance companies that were at the time under investigation by the attorney general. Interesting, isn't it, that these little gifties don't appear on the financial disclosure forms until after the free press calls attention to them.
What's missing from all these finance, ethics, disclosure laws is a desire on the part of the previous two attorneys general and the previous secretary of state to prosecute those that break the law. Attorneys General Brian Sandoval and George Chanos had many opportunities to file criminal complaints and did not. Secretary of State Dean Heller simply hid under his desk when the questions were asked. What's needed in the laws concerning finance, ethics, and disclosure are big, sharp, hungry teeth.
Breaking these laws should carry more than the threat of a fine that will be paid by some campaign donor. Felony penalties that include prison time should be the order of the day. Removal from office, substantial fines, and prison time should be the law. Disclosure in the courts shouldn't be a debatable issue. Judges that accept campaign contributions and don't disclose that fact in open court should be accused of bribery. It's basically that simple.
What the Nevada Center for Public Ethics is proposing, and what the Nevada Observer has been promoting is only a start. If the legislature, if those sitting in public office as "Representatives of the People" won't do the job, then maybe it will be "The People" that will have to finish the job. The process of the Initiative Petition is written into our constitution for just these purposes. When representative democracy fails because of the representative, then it must be up to those who were supposed to be represented to do the job.
•••