The Transparency Test: See which legislators and candidates will take a stand on reforms

Thursday, May 24, 2012 | 6:23 a.m.

THE TRANSPARENCY TEST

THE TALLY: Thirteen support all reforms, three with noncommittal responses, 33 have no answer yet

KEEP IN MIND: Seven senators voted against AB 452, a transparency bill from last session, before having the bill recalled so they could change their votes and avoid any political damage. They were: Brower, Gustavson, Halseth, McGinness, Rhoads, Roberson and Settelmeyer. Brower, as you will see below, now says he "generally" supports the concepts.

UPDATE: Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak has proposed a resolution backing these reforms, as well as some of his own. I have posted it at right, too.

This will be a continually updating blog until – we hope – the first week of the 2013 Legislature when Assemblyman Pat Hickey plans to bring his reform proposals to a vote. The core principles are:

• Real-time reporting of campaign contributions;

• Require candidates to report how much they have on hand after the election;

• Reporting during the interim of lobbyists and donors giving gifts to lawmakers;

• Giving the secretary of state more power to audit the reports;

• A cooling-off period for legislators before they can become lobbyists.

I will tally which lawmakers on the ballot – and after June 12, the primary nominees – support what should be non-brainer improvements to the system. Some are already adopting the “devil in details” weasel words, so they are for now not on the side of the angels. Lawmakers and candidates are free to change their positions at any time, of course. This is simply an effort to take their temperature and get them on the record before the proposals – we hope – come up for a vote.

I am attaching Hickey’s statement to this post and here are the columns I wrote on Sunday

and Wednesday

I also asked the governor to weigh in and, through a spokesman, he is very supportive:

The Governor has long supported transparency in the political process and in government. He would support similar rules and disclosure during the interim, as well as more timely reporting during campaigns. Cooling off periods already exist for certain members of the executive branch and could easily be extended to legislators. Not only has he made transparent government a priority of his administration, he issued an executive order on his first day in office establishing ethics rules for himself, his senior staff, his Cabinet members and all Division heads of Cabinet agencies, which prohibit accepting gifts or other compensation. The Governor believes increased transparency in government is good for the political process and should legislation be proposed, he looks forward to working with the Legislature on meaningful reform.

Below are the lawmakers – and their comments, if any, are posted below the list.

STATE SENATE

Greg Brower "Generally" supports all

Barbara Cegavske

Mo Denis

Don Gustavson

Joe Hardy

Ben Kieckhefer Supports all concepts

Ruben Kihuen

John Lee

Sheila Leslie Supports all concepts, concerned about funding auditing functions

Mark Manendo

David Parks

Michael Roberson

James Settelmeyer

ASSEMBLY

Paul Aizley

Elliot Anderson Says concepts “sounds good”

Kelvin Atkinson Supports concepts

Teresa Benitez-Thompson

David Bobzien

Steven Brooks

Irene Bustamante Adams

Maggie Carlton

Richard Carrillo

Marcus Conklin

Skip Daly

Olivia Diaz Supports transparency, no commitment on concepts

Marilyn Dondero Loop

John Ellison

Lucy Flores Supports all

Jason Frierson Supports all

Pete Goicoechea

Tom Grady

John Hambrick Supports all

Scott Hammond

Ira Hansen

Cresent Hardy Supports all

Joe Hogan Supports all

William Horne

Marilyn Kirkpatrick

Randy Kirner Supports all

Kelly Kite

Pete Livermore Supports all

April Mastroluca Supports transparency, devil in details

Richard McArthur

Harvey Munford

Dina Neal

Peggy Pierce Supports all, wants a week to report

Tick Segerblom

Supports all and wants public financing, limits

Debbie Smith

Lynn Stewart

Melissa Woodbury

Other comments:

Sheila Leslie:

* Absolutely people need to report what they have on hand after each election and that money should be incorporated into the next report so people can clearly see how much cash on hand each candidate has.

* SB 206 is back! Of course I support it. And with all the attention, it might just pass next time!

* This just "depends" for me - what does it mean? If it means funding positions, I'm not sure I would prioritize it over mental health needs or other underfunded areas of state government. What does "more power to audit" mean? I'd want to hear from Ross first about what the problem really is and what he sees as the solution. Not opposed to the concept but this is way too vague for me to give you an answer at this point.

* Yes, definitely a cooling-off period is necessary. However, I don't think this is a huge problem. Things have changed, especially with term limits. I don't see former lawmakers having huge influence as lobbyists the next session after they retire. But the public perception is very negative so I think a cooling-off period is appropriate.

April Mastroluca:

I believe that we need more transparency in this area and I support having the discussion at the Legislature. The devil is in the details here and I am looking forward to seeing what bill language comes forth.

Elliot Anderson:

I am proud to support transparency, and happily supported Ross Miller's efforts last session. These concepts sound good, and I am looking forward to seeing these proposals in writing. I'm glad we are all talking about this important issue.

Kelvin Atkinson:

I actually do support these in concept. I have always believed that government should be more transparent and accountable to the people that we represent. With that said, I would have to see what more auditing means, if that suggests we would need to find a way to fund this, does that mean something has to get cut or not funded? So with everything else, I would have to see how this would affect the over state budget. I certainly would need to know what that means. Once in session, I'll take a hard look at each proposal and/or legislation and maybe, hopefully, be a part of the overall discussion as we move forward. I also would not mind, after they have been fairly and openly discussed, giving an up or down vote based on what is written or proposed, but again, in concept I support these proposals.

Joe Hogan:

I have always supported transparency in government finance and began Common Cause in Maryland and served as its first President. I introduced a bill on Campaign Contributions and Expenses Reports. Thus, I believe some provisions of Campaign Finance reporting definitely need to be revised to provide more information to the public in a timely fashion.

Olivia Diaz:

I’m a strong supporter of greater transparency and definitely agree that more of it is needed in our state. I look forward to the discussion on each one of these concepts and perhaps on some other ideas on how to make reporting more transparent during the next legislative session.

Randy Kirner:

All of them. I was with Pat at the press conference. Several months ago we received a D- on theCorruption Risk Report Card and while this report had its flaws, I think the proposed measures address transparency and accountability. Pat is hitting head on the 800 pound gorilla in the room, specifically "What influence do lobbyist expect with their contribution and what obligations do legislators feel?" These are common sense proposals and are responsive to the public interest. It is about honestly, transparency, and public trust in their representatives.

Tick Segerblom:

Also supports public financing and “limits on independent contributions and spending by pacs”

Peggy Pierce:

OK with all except "real time reporting." Needs to be a week.

I work a regular job and I do not have someone to;

1) pick up the dry cleaning

2) buy groceries

3) take pets to vet

4) clean house

5) do yard work

6) make dinner

7) open mail

8) pay bills

9) etc., etc., etc..

All of this has to be done plus what I do to be a legislator and what I do to get re-elected.

It would be nice if the phrase "citizen legislator" was more then an idea that so many love, in the abstract.

Ben Kieckhefer:

I support all of these (and always have), with the sole hedge of needing to consider the circumstances surrounding the Secretary of State's office power to audit. One other item that is missing from these reforms, however, are real penalties for people who willfully violate campaign laws.