71 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Steve Marcus
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid gives a concession speech during a Democratic election party Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2010, at Aria.
Friday, March 4, 2011 | 10:25 a.m.
Campaign contributions
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
diggKSNV coverage of questions raised about campaign contributions to Rory Reid's failed gubernatorial campaign, March 4, 2011.
In one of the most brazen schemes in Nevada history, gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid’s campaign formed 91 shell political action committees that were used to funnel three quarters of a million dollars into his campaign, circumventing contribution limits and violating at least the spirit – and maybe the letter – of the laws governing elections.
Reid, who was fully aware of what was done, essentially received more than $750,000 from one PAC – 75 times the legal limit -- after his team created dozens of smaller PACS that had no other purpose other than to serve as conduits from a larger entity that the candidate funded by asking large donors for money. Indeed, the shell PACs were formed in the fall and dissolved on Dec. 31, after they had served their short-term function, which was to help the candidate evade campaign contribution laws.
Reid solicited donations for the Economic Leadership PAC, which raised more than $800,000 over a five-month period – donations that were then disbursed in $10,000 increments to dozens of other PACS, which quickly funneled the money back to the candidate’s campaign account.
Records show many of the PACS had names implying rural provenance –such as the Douglas County Committee for Change and Lyon County Leadership Fund – but they all had the same Las Vegas residential address before being quietly dissolved after the election. The money laundered through these PACS often resided there only for a couple of days, a transaction that was needed to, they believed, comply with contribution limits on a technicality. The Reid campaign could then quickly make use of the money in a futile attempt to salvage his faltering gubernatorial bid.
Reid told me today that he cleared what he did with his legal counsel – Paul Larsen – and the secretary of state’s office. “What we did was fully disclosed and complied with the law,” Reid said. “We did it because it was legal. If it’s a statement on anything, it’s a statement on the failure of campaign laws. This was not done in the dark of night. We disclosed everything we did.”
Indeed. But those PACS were named in such a way as to disguise why they were created and there is no other way to see this than a maneuver to get around the campaign contribution limits. “Just because you’ve never seen it before doesn’t mean it’s wrong or illegal,” Reid said. “It’s just a different structure.”
I contacted Secretary of State Ross Miller, who could not confirm that the Reid campaign cleared the machinations with his office. In fact, he checked with his elections folks, who had no recollection of any such conversations. I have not been able to reach Larsen.
“I don’t have all the facts yet,” said Miller, who promised to look into the matter. “But I will not hesitate to contact the election integrity task force and the attorney general if it rises to that level.”
So will it?
The campaign finance laws are a Swiss cheese amalgamation of statutes designed to allow all manner of nonsense. But there are laws that prohibit giving contributions in the name of others and if Miller investigates, the campaign folks will have to prove that the transactions were not just on paper to those smaller PACs.
The scheme worked this way, according to records:
On Aug. 23, 2010, two Reid operatives amended the registration for the Economic Leadership PAC, an existing entity, to convert it to one with his campaign headquarters as the address and his campaign manager, David Cohen, and another staffer, Joanna Paul, as the officers.
The ostensible purpose, required on the registration papers: “To support candidates and organizations that promote economic development and diversification”
But that was a ruse. That clearly was not the entity’s real purpose, as subsequent events would show, and appears to be an attempt to disguise why it was formed.
Reid had already begun soliciting money for the PAC, mostly from major donors who gave large checks to what he told them was an effort to assist his campaign.
Among the donors were major unions, gaming companies and wealthy donors, some of whom already had given to his campaign committee. Here is the link to the report:
(Full disclosure: Among those induced to contribute to the PAC were Jim Rogers, through the TV stations on which my program appears, and Janie Greenspun Gale, part of the family that owns the Las Vegas Sun.)
Shortly after Team Reid formed this PAC and the candidate began soliciting funds for it, a series of other committees began to sprout, all with the same address – Joanna Paul’s home address. They were set up with Larsen as the resident agent and Paul as the treasurer.
Larsen put only “all legal purposes” on the registration forms for the entities to explain why they were formed, a perhaps barely sufficient, purposely vague statement to fulfill a statutory requirement to state a “purpose for which it was organized.”
During the next two months, the Economic Leadership PAC transferred, in $10,000 or $9,980 increments – virtually all of its money to those other committees supposedly headquartered at Paul’s home. In all, 91 PACs were formed, although only 76 were used as conduits – the others did not file campaign contribution reports with the state, indicating they had zero activity.
More than $750,000 flowed into Reid’s campaign after only brief stops in the smaller PACS, which allowed the Economic Leadership PAC to flout limits that restrict PAC contributions to $10,000 per election. Reid’s campaign thus received 75 times the amount permitted by law because of the system his team erected to get around the law.
Here’s how it worked:
On Sept. 7, 2010, 30 of these smaller PACS received $10,000 each from the umbrella PAC. Two days later, they all transferred the $10,000 checks to Rory Reid’s campaign, a good way to get $300,000 in one day.
For the next few weeks, many similar transactions occurred. On Sept. 23, four PACS received contributions from the Economic Leadership PAC; two days later, they funneled the money to the Reid campaign. On Oct. 5, 10 PACS get money; two days later, they contribute to Reid. On Oct. 11, 27 PACS got money; two days later, it was transferred to Reid’s account.
And so it went – you see the pattern.
So Reid essentially solicited money for a PAC, but he knew the money would ultimately end up in his campaign bank account.
There’s much more to come in this story – tune in to “Face to Face” tonight as Reid has agreed to appear, read my column Sunday in the Las Vegas Sun and keep your eye on this blog as I will begin to post documents and more to show exactly what happened.
Like father, like son?
I was never a huge fan of Rory Reid, but I didn't think he was this big of a sleazebag.
Let's all remember this the next time he tries to run for office.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this one. Not that I would cry for Reid, but for a system that allows this to happen in the first place.
I'll say it again, at the very least contributions must be limited to only eligible voters in the state being served by the office being run for. I would prefer to see it restricted to only eligible voters in the district being served by the office, but that could never pass Constitutional muster.
You can't put lipstick on a PAC and call it something else. The Reids should retire, after the prostitution crap, we need new blood.
Blatant fraud, just like his father. At least THIS fraud didn't get elected.
If it was within the law, OK. And if it was then change the law.
Rory, Rory, Rory...
Better go into private practice.
Your public service career is TOAST.
PAC.
It's becoming the most evil acronym in the U.S.A.
ALL OF OUR POLITICIANS are bought & paid for...
Someone should let Rory know that the meaning of ethics is knowing the difference between what he has a right to do and what is right to do. Just because what he did was legal, it is not ethical and if this type of conduct is an indication of his ethics, he should never be elected to another office.
And Daddy knew nothing about it ;). Righhhhht!
Did Jon Ralston stumble across this shell game in the course of researching campaign finance records or did someone tip him off to the scheme?
If Rory had this extra infusion of $$$ to spend - then how the heck did Sandoval end up with almost 12% more of the votes?
It's disappointing in many ways but, if there is a silver lining, it shows that Democrats are wising-up to the tricks and loop-holes that Republicans have been using for years.
As bad as it was, it still pales in comparison to what the Republicans did with Koch and Chamber of Commerce PAC money.
Blame the Supreme Court - Reid did nothing illegal.
In the 'Citizens United Decision', UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS are allowed by groups whose only interest is making money for themselves and to hell with the public. This is what happened in the 2010 election and why there is so much turmoil in Government today.
Thank John Roberts and Sam Alito for ignoring 100 years of campaign laws. Extrapolate Libertarianism and it becomes Anarchy, where the biggest, wealthiest and most criminal forces control. Extended Libertarianism is Anarchy with Police riding in armored personnel carriers.
hey ralston...
investigate karl rove...
investigate the koch brothers...
investigate the chamber of commerce...
investigate how mining and gaming funnel millions to their candidates...
investigate wall street...
So what you are telling me is that he did the same thing every other politician does? big deal.
VegasEngineer: That's why we're in the mess. He did do what other politicians do. It is a "big deal".
The Supreme Court ruling (which I strongly disagree with) does not cover actions like these that were clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of the law. It covered contributions to so-called super-PACs that run ads independently of any candidate's committee.
These mini-PACs were designed solely to funnel what would otherwise be prohibited contributions directly into a candidate's campaign to be used as the candidate desired. There are restrictions on what actions can be undertaken by a PAC in its ads or statements.
The simple restriction I propose would eliminate all of this and at the same time preserve the First Amendment rights of non-voting entities by allowing them to continue to speak their opinion independent of a candidate's campaign, which was what the Supreme Court upheld.
ALL professional politicians are pond scum.
A crooked Reid, NO way. I am shocked and surprised. Jon I am sure you will keep supporting the family in all of their politcal runs.
Definitely deserving of an investigation, at the very least.
Of course, with the Chamber of Commerce and corporate interests flooding elections with cash, Democrats will have to find ways to fund their candidates to withstand the tidal wave.
This, however, is not the way.
Are you kidding. All politicians are doing this kind of stuff. Its almost a requirement because the entire political system has been correupted by money
He was probably taught by "DADDY DEAR".
These violations should be looked into very, very seriously, regardless of who told him it was legal. He, Rory Reid, still is responsible. Besides he should know anyway, he IS a lawyer isn't he. And, if he guilty he should be disbarred and be given the maximum penalty, fine, or sentence.
Daddy must have taught him how to steal elections. Throw him in jail. Are you gonna blame this on the firement too Rory! Why don't you get a real job?
It will take no less than a constitutional amendment to rein this in. Running ads and keeping up with the mudslinging that goes on on all sides, requires big bucks. That's how campaigns are won and lost these days, because that's all that most voters bother to pay attention to.
It will take a generation of debate to reform this. But starting points should include: 1) restrictions on length of campaign seasons, 2) restrictions on advertisements in the media (this will be the hardest part of the reform -- the 1st Amendment, which I cherish, is nothing to facilely suppress), 3) more numerous and lengthier televised debates, with any candidate polling over, say, 5% of support automatically included.
These and other issues need to be on the table. But right now we have a political system of paid-for legislation by and for the monied interests. The corruption and gamesmanship, as evidenced by this article, are symptoms of the disease. The disease itself must be addressed. It will take a generation of arguing. But in my opinion, we have no choice but to see it through.
The people that don't like Ried tactics, why don't you complain about the Kook Brothers?
So it's wrong when Rory Reid does it, but perfectly OK when Brian Sandoval, Sharron Angle, and others do it?
It's the same damned problem of unlimited corporate cash flooding our election process, and now they're out to infect the legislative process as well with the Kochs and "Americans for (No) Prosperity (for Working People)" funding astroturf campaigns to prevent The Legislature from making the big corporations and super-rich pay their fair share. Unless and until we get rid of the dirty money, campaigns will always be this way.
My goodness, first the violence of the Democrat protestors.
Then the death threats by Democrat politicians.
Now the corruption by Democrat candidates for office.
Shocking turn of events.
Rory, a chip off the block as they say.
Thank my stars I knew better.
The PAC law was simply a way to circumvent campaign law limitations.
It was a scam on the voters and rich people use it to buy politics.
Corporate CEOs require their staff to donate to their SPECIAL INTEREST PAC so that the corporation can buy off the politician.
America FOR SALE to RICH PEOPLE!
Like father like son? Just asking - not accusing - just asking! Maybe daddy is a little smarter... Just me thinking out loud.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The Reid's are an embarrassment to the state of Nevada. I hope they check Harry's campaign finance activity as well. You know the Unions have been circumventing the campaign finance laws for as long as they have existed.
Pretty sad, but like others have said, it's definitely not limited to the Reids or the democrats.
All politicians at that level are scumbags. It's not even a clever scheme, it's just flat out wrong. Of course he knew there was something unethical about it, hence the names of all of the entities.
Let's see if Sandoval did the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised. If not that exact plan, I'm sure there's something else sleazy going on. The pass that he gives the mining industry is pretty blatant in and of itself. But that also isn't limited to Sandoval or the state Republicans.
The fact that the other side did it too doesn't make it right. The democrat supporters on this board should acknowledge that, instead of somehow grasping at straws and attempting to blame the other party. It was wrong, he knew it was wrong, and that's it. Other people do it, and they're wrong too. Does that make you feel better?
None of the laws that make this possible will be changed until we elect representatives who will do what *we* want. That will not happen with Democrat or Republican candidates.
It's time to look at a different party who will field candidates chosen by the general membership and not by major donors.
Comment removed by moderator. Name-calling.
"Just because you've never seen it before doesn't mean it's wrong or illegal," Reid said.
This is how politicans think. What can I get away with. Didn't vote for Rory, and now I am glad. He is just another sleaze bag politican.
Hope to never see you in politics again Rory.
Joe, in this case it's not even about party polarity. This is about removing blatant corruption from the election process.
No candidate should be beholden to or at the beck and call of any donor with deep pockets. This should apply equally to Democrats, Republicans or any other party including the one I belong to.
We *must* take serious steps to remove undue and inappropriate influence from our elections and elected representatives.
Way too much money in election process on just about every level. It isn't just the last contribution, but positioning to get the next one.
It isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it is everyone is being bought through this process. How can this not affect an elected officials judgment?
Father like son. This is no surprise to me, Harry Reid did the same when he gave money to the Patriot Majority to air campaign ads on his behave. Campaign limits is a must, so that everyone is on the same playing field.
"It's disappointing in many ways but, if there is a silver lining, it shows that Democrats are wising-up to the tricks and loop-holes that Republicans have been using for years."
-------------------------------------
I think this also shows that the republicans who have gone against the TeaHeads have been telling the democrats how to do it, you betcha.
boftx is right--this is matter of too much money from too few people. Campaigns start too early and focus on money. The House of Representatives with the two year cycle is a non-stop fund raising operation for members of both parties.
We might as well put the "For Sale" up out front.
Until campaign contributions are severely limited to a reasonable, attainable amount, one that even your 'average joe' could possibly acquire - until and only THEN will we finally get to see someone who ISN'T RICH, doesn't have "CONNECTIONS", isn't BEHOLDEN to Corporate America, stand a fair, fighting chance of gaining political office. This Country is going down the tubes FAST - Of the RICH, For the RICH, By the RICH.... the REAL PREAMBLE :(
Rory must've learned how to cheat the political donation system like Obama did when he bought the White House.
As I recall it was once said to me by a very influential tenured Department Head "everything is legal until you get caught".
When will this web reveal all that it has caught, and when will every politician who has used this tactic be stained for their ruse from 2002 campaign reform.
Moreover, isn't this the reason the law was passed in the first place; for the fact that this loop hole existed.
http://www.fec.gov/info/compliance.shtml...
turrialba & airweare, good comments...
Why don't we have a system whereby ALL candidates get THE SAME AMOUNT of money to spend, and from public funding.
America has come undone, and we ain't getting ANYWHERE with our current political processes, because our pol's are beholden to the entities that buy them their seats.
We've become a nation of pawns who pull levers for others.
I said it up above and I'll say it again: you won't get money out of politics until you deal with the constitutional issues. And amending THAT will take years and years of persistence.
Until then, you can't expect individual politicians to obey one set of rules according to an honor system, when their opponents can run circles around them with a different set of rules. All the politicized name-calling or pious talk about fixing the process is feel-good talk that will achieve absolutely NOTHING.
Remember, the Constitution or bust.
boftx is right no matter what party you belong to this is just not right not for Democrats or
Republicans not for any of them and when we say they all do it does that make it right? We need to stand up to our politicians that we have put in office no matter if it is your guy or not and let them know "we are mad as hell and we won't take it anymore" no violence no tearing our country apart if we keep taking sides this will never end.
I wonder if Dingy Harry taught Rory, no last name, this trick. Peas of a pod! Recall Dingy Harry!
Public service unions, Demorats, and Liberals, the downfall of America! Read this article and it confirms my statement!
Leave the commenting to the adults with ideas, Homeboylv. Empty posts like yours contribute nothing and get in the way of those of us try to solve problems.
Homeboylv,
Although looking at the donor list *might* suggest a link to public unions in this particular instance, this issue has nothing to do with Democrats or Liberals as such. It is about the very foundation of our democratic process.
I would not be surprised to find out that other elected officials have done the same thing in the past, without regard to party affiliation. But none have been so brazen (to use Jon's words) in saying there is nothing wrong with it as in this case.
The desire of any candidate to subvert the election process can not be tolerated or facilitated by our laws. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are embedded within our current legal code and it is highly unlikely that any of our presently elected officials will do anything to change that.
DTJ is absolutely correct. Campaign finance reform is THE most impotant topic that no one is talking about. It must be overhauled from top to bottom, because it's the reason corruption exists.
No one wants to talk about it though, our puppet-masters would rather get us spun up on gay marriage, abortion and immigration. " Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
If politicians didn't need millions and millions of dollars just to keep their jobs, they might owe a few less favors and actually do what's right for a change.
DTJ, The only problem you are trying to solve is your stupidity! Sorry, but an impossible task! Public service unions, Demorats, and liberals, the downfall of America!
boftx, I consider Rory, no last name, a Demorat and a liberal. Him and his dad are the reason for America's problems, IMHO. Agree or disagree, that's my opinion. Thanks for you comments.
Your out man, step aside the people aren't putting up with kleptocrats on either side right or left.
Its not long before the people of this country march and forcibly remove the likes of your father, the traitorous congress, shut down the federal reserve and take our country back.
Step aside and get out of the way of the coming storm.
Since I last checked in, a pair of thoughtful comments by Boftx and The_Next_Opinion, and then some more asinine noise from Homeboylv, who mouths what conservative radio, Sean Hannity, etc. pours into his ears and not much else.
Back to constructive conversation:
As I've said, the First Amendment issue prohibits impingement on any expression of speech, and the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that this includes campaign advertising. Until specific rules are put in place --AND CODIFIED BY AMENDMENT -- it will always be a race for the biggest war chest. The absolute winner in fundraising may not necessarily always win the election, but to be in the game, comparable sums need to be raised.
But one campaign reform that, to my knowledge, hasn't been pursued seriously in this country and thus might stand a chance against constitutional challenge, would be limitations on when campaigning for office may begin. Great Britain has their "Purdah" period, which I believe is a strict campaign period of six weeks.
Now if both major parties would ever by into this principle, the constitutional issue would become largely moot, as all major candidacies in this nation come from one or the other party.
The culture has to figure out what it wants to demand because the politicians are too addicted to money to change it on their own.
Another thief just like the old man. Must have been taught well. Can't wait for the indictment and the perp walk. Buy any gas lately. Blame Bush.
BCDave,
Rory is on his own, on this one. I have no interest in defending his cute games with the rules. But what's this "thief" talk about Harry? One hears this from time to time. But what did he do? Did he embezzle money? Did he benefit from a sweet land swap?
I'm NOT mocking you -- I really want to know. I've lived in this Valley for the better part of the past decade, but some of you have been following Harry since his alleged "Mr. Cleanface" days (which I understand ended up being nothing more than jailhouse bluster). Anyway, please do tell about Harry. From what I've seen, Harry has been leading from the front this past Congress, and did a damn good job.
DTJ,
Although recent rulings have upheld that corporations and such have a right to speech, nothing has struck down down the limitations on how much can be contributed directly to a campaign, nor has anything struck down the federal rule on who can contribute directly to a campaign.
Based on that, I think my proposal to limit direct contributions to eligible voters in the state being served by an office would pass Constitutional muster. It does not prevent any person or entity from exercising their right to free speech by working with a PAC in any way, but does limit the influence they may exert directly upon a candidate.
Since a PAC or business interest or other organization can not vote, it would automatically stop the kind of action that reported by Ralston. The restriction to voters in the state would also help remove outside influence to a certain extent.
PACs are allowed to express themselves relatively freely, but can not directly coordinate with a candidate's campaign.
Boftx,
Good points. I'm fighting off an Ambien pill I took, so will beg off until tomorrow. For now, let me just say: "only direct contributions for eligible voters" -- VERY GOOD START.
Believing PAC's powers will be curtailed because PACS can't vote -- not so good a start.
I'm fading fast from the Ambien and feeling loopy. Even Homeboy could make me giggle right now. I'll happily continue fixing the world with you tomorrow.
We gone.
This is a shameful evasion. It is not fair to connect this to Harry, as some here may try, but I think it may signal the end of the Reid family involvement in Nevada politics. I am tired of the silly harangue about prostitution, the endless controversy and now this. Democratic candidates are walking around with targets placed on their backs. They need to avoid the appearance of the deviousness and sleazy connections which they accuse Republicans of being involved in. The legality of Reid's actions here is far from clear, and it looks very deceptive.
No matter what laws get passed the lawyers will figure out a way around them.
Even when they get caught it is usually a slap on the wrist and it is done months or years after the violation occurred.
They should stop playing all these games and drop all the laws.
The people should only support candidates that disclose all their donations.
@gmag:
You may have a point with the public financing. The system of elections is broken.
The root cause of the problem are the voters themselves. The reason why the politicians run the mindless negative ads is because the ads work. It takes money to buy these ads. Rory obviously thought about this approach before he adopted it. He understood the legal and ethical choices he was making, which is more than you can say for a lot of politicians. In the end, though it is we the electorate that perpetuate this system.
When I was growing up in the 60s, the TV was sometimes referred to as the "idiot box". My mother used this term from time to time. I used to think that it meant that the stuff on TV was idiotic. I finally figured out that only an idiot would sit in front of the box and watch that stuff.
The ads work. It costs money to run ads to appeal to the idiots in front of the TV.
At the end of the day it is all about:
THE CHARACTER OF THE PERSON !!
You can always find lawyers to defend and justify a persons "marginal behavior". Many in the media would ignore this story. I'm happy to see this wasn't one of those instances.
Good Job Mr. Ralston !!
Rory, no last name, call Daddy quick! See if one crook can help another crook! I suggest hiding out with Daddy at the Ritz in DC. I wonder how many more Demorat liberal politicians were using this same ploy? Will the AG, Cortez Masto, have the guts to investigate this? What a joke!
Homeboylv, you're either extremely naive or intentionally trying to spread lies if you think this nonsense is limited to Democrats.
Anyway... I agree that restricting direct contributions to eligible voters (well, people living within eligible boundaries, whether they've registered to vote, or not) is worth a try. The Supreme Court has ruled that money=free speech, so this would be challenged and I don't know if it would hold up. But unless this has already been tried before, it's worth finding out.
PACs will continue to be the bane of the system, though. As Boftx and I have already covered in a previous discussion, out-of-state money already reigns in campaign contributions. So if we plug one hole by restricting direct contributions to the electorate, that's all the more that will flow into PACs. In the end, I still see no permanent solution until the constitutionality of all facets is addressed.
But until then, we still should and can attack the problem wherever we can. I would support a ballot measure to restrict contributions to people within a constituency.
Tch! I expect better from Democrats.
In the 2012 election, none of this will matter any more. Because of the Supreme Court's CITIZENS UNITED decision, foreign countries, Saudi princes, corporations from any nation (such as British Petroleum) will be able to give UNLIMITED and SECRET contributions to the candidates who offer to do their bidding.
CITIZENS UNITED is anti-American and a danger to our national security. Corruption at the Supreme Court is worse than anything any elected official can do.
I voted for Sandoval, and I think you're making way too big of a deal out of this. Reid consulted one of the most respected regulatory lawyers in Nevada, who works for arguably the most respected law firm in Nevada. The lawyer checked the law and spoke to the Secretary of State. Now, the lawyer didn't talk to the number 1 or 2 guy at the SOS, and maybe that was a mistake, but if anything that was a mistake by the attorney that Reid consulted and not by Reid.
Also, the argument that this lawyer would write this memo as part of a shell game to protect Reid is ridiculous. Larsen and Lionel Sawyer & Collins would not purposefully risk their good reputation just so Reid could commit a scam. Also, it wasn't long ago that Reid ridiculed a Lionel Sawyer & Collins-related lobbying effort during his campaign, and LSC did not have a problem coming out publicly to correct Reid (http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralston...). I highly doubt that LSC is all of a sudden willing to jump on a grenade for Reid.
JeanValjean,
You may well be correct about the legality of the maneuver, though the Secretary of State and Attorney General have a most serious duty to look into this. Review/investigation nothwithstanding, this WAS a shell game involving the better part of a million dollars, designed entirely to circumvent both the purpose and the spirit of the law. And it is for precisely these kind of actions that some of us (at least) are concentrating on the larger issue: election finance reform.
Money has completely perverted our democratic system.
@JeanValjean:
Very thoughtful post. Thank you.
T.
DTJ -- I agree that the Nevada legislature should take a hard look at this and shore up any holes in the current regulatory scheme. My previous post was more about Reid's culpability than whether there are problems with the current election finance laws.
Jean,
Fair enough.
I just had a long discussion with my party's national chairman and I can state that any candidate running under our auspices or with our endorsement would be expelled or disavowed upon discovery of any action like this. Even if this does not violate the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law, as Jon Ralston pointed out. The party chair feels strongly enough that I believe he is going to put out a press release stating this.