Group wants candidates to sign spending pledges

Wednesday, Dec. 31, 1997 | 11:13 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Every politician complains about the high cost of campaigns -- shelling out money for television and radio advertisements, mailing brochures and renting billboards.

Now a diverse group wants candidates to sign pledges they will limit their campaign spending.

"Money has polluted our political system," said Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance, a coalition of 33 groups that includes environmentalists, women's organizations, Latinos, labor and low-income advocates.

"We're trying to come up with what reasonable limits will be for each office and then we will ask the candidates to sign 'buck stopper pledges' to restrict campaign spending," Fulkerson said. "And there will be an escape clause if the opponent breaks the promise."

So far, the proposal has drawn mixed reactions.

Paul Henry, chairman of the state Democratic Central Committee, said Democrats would be willing to accept campaign spending limitations if Republicans would accept the same limits.

"This is a good first step," Henry said.

However, Dan Burdish, executive director of the Nevada Republican Party, doesn't think the coalition's plan will work. He said a candidate trailing by a point or two late in the election would probably spend the extra money to get elected.

Secretary of State Dean Heller, a Republican, said he doesn't know how proposed campaign spending limits would work.

"How do you tell a Kenny Guinn who has a reported $2 million that he can only spend a half million dollars?," asked Heller, referring to GOP gubernatorial candidate Kenny Guinn.

Assembly Speaker Joe Dini, D-Yerington, thinks it's a good idea but it may not be enforceable.

"There are political pressures to retain and gain the houses (Assembly and Senate) and that dictates how much money you put in the campaigns. The political caucuses are going to throw in a lot of money. They will try to get people elected no matter what it costs."

Fulkerson said the 30-member board of directors of the Progressive Leadership Alliance meets Jan. 8, at which time it will try to set the limits on each race.

"We're talking about $2 million for the governor's race and probably half of that for other statewide race," he said. "We will probably take a look at the average amount for Assembly and Senate and ask the candidates to adhere to that so that people could not buy offices but have to earn them."

In 1994, Gov. Bob Miller raised $3.2 million in his successful race for re-election. That was the highest amount raised by any state candidate in Nevada's history.

Spending limits would force politicians to talk to residents about the issues, Fulkerson said, "instead of waving a seven-figure checking account."

State legislators earn $7,800 for a session every two years. However, some races cost more than $200,000.

"The fact is that the top candidate who raises the most money almost always wins ... nine out of 10 times."

Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa pulled out of the race for governor earlier this year complaining she had to spend too much time raising campaign contributions and did not have enough time to talk about issues.

She said she had raised about $250,000 at that point, compared to the $2 million reportedly collected by Guinn.

"This business of raising huge amounts of money to scare off opponents is a business to buy elections and this is not what democracy is about," Fulkerson said.

Henry, who endorses spending limits, said if two candidates openly agree and one or the other decides to exceed the limit, "that's a campaign issue." He said the public can then judge whether the candidate can be trusted.

But a candidate could sign a pledge and then wait until the final days of the campaign to toss a lot of money into television and advertisements.

Under Nevada's new campaign financing law, the financial disclosure statement must be filed by Aug. 25 for the period ending Aug. 19 next year. That's a week before the primary election of Sept. 1.

The deadline for filing the campaign financing report for the general election Nov. 3 is Oct. 27 for funds collected up to Oct. 21.

"People could cheat, but it's a better safeguard than what we have now," Henry said. He also pointed out that buying television time and mailouts have to be done far in advance so that would hamper big money being thrown in at the last moment.

Burdish said in the U.S. Senate campaign in Massachusetts two years ago, both candidates agreed to a limit and both exceeded it by 30 percent. "It was totally ridiculous and it was the most expensive campaign of that day.

"I don't care which party you are in, if you're only down by a point and you think you can win by spending $10,000, are you not going to spend the $10,000? I think they will. It's ludicrous."

And campaign spending limits would help the incumbents, Burdish said.

"Elections are won by name recognition and the incumbents have the advantage."

But Fulkerson believes the limitation would help the non-incumbent candidates.

"Incumbents now can basically get a blank check from the powers-to-be. They can raise boatloads from party caucuses and leadership -- somebody off the street doesn't have access to that.

"This will level the field away from the incumbent advantage," he said.

It now costs a minimum of $50,000 to $60,000 to run a race for the Assembly and "most of the guys are struggling" to raise that sum, Dini said.

"It would be nice to get campaign costs down, but you would have to take a person at his word."

Dini recalled that in the 1970s the Legislature passed a law that limited spending to the number of voters in the districts. "I thought that was a good law but the Supreme Court didn't think so."