Editorial: Campaign reporting plan solid

Friday, Jan. 10, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Apply that axiom to Nevada's campaign finance laws and it's easy to see why the public is disturbed. By requiring disclosure of only those campaign contributions exceeding $500 in statewide and local races, Nevada ranks only behind Georgia as the nation's most secretive state in that regard.

That's why we applaud a bipartisan proposal by Gov. Bob Miller and Secretary of State Dean Heller to lower the reporting threshold to $100. Several Democratic and Republican legislators also have vowed to support the reform plan when it is debated in the upcoming Legislature.

It is a welcome proposal because the public deserves to know where candidates are getting their financial support.

As Heller notes, more than half of all money contributed to legislative races comes from donations of $500 or less. So when your state senator or assemblyman is elected, you don't get a complete picture of their financial backers. Far from it, in fact.

The problem is even more glaring when it comes to political parties and legislative caucuses. Newly elected Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone collected at least $170,000 last year from the Nevada Republican Party, but none of the sources of that money had to be disclosed under current law. Some Malone critics allege that a big chunk of that money came from Sands hotel-casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

The four caucuses -- the Senate Republican Leadership Conference, Senate Democratic Caucus, Republican Assembly Caucus and Assembly Democratic Caucus -- pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into legislative campaigns each election. But under current law, the caucuses may hide the sources of that money from the public, and all four have chosen to do so.

Thankfully, that too would change under the Miller-Heller plan. The $100 threshold would apply to contributions to caucuses and parties as well as to candidates themselves.

Another problem with the current threshold is that it creates a gaping loophole that encourages a practice of collecting funds known as "bundling." Take, for instance, a 50-member law firm. Each lawyer under current law could contribute $499.99 to a candidate for a total of essentially $25,000 without the public knowing that all that money came from the same firm.

Lowering the threshold to $100 makes it that much more difficult to bundle large amounts of money to escape disclosure.

Although the public's right to know is counterbalanced in this case against a donor's right to privacy, we have heard no compelling argument why a political contributor's name should be kept secret.

Miller, Heller and the lawmakers in their corner correctly note that public confidence in government can only be restored if reforms such as this campaign finance proposal are enacted and aggressively enforced.