Editorial: Ethics panel’s fine worthy of applause

Friday, June 26, 1998 | 11:43 a.m.

THE state Ethics Commission is often accused by critics of being ineffective, but the six-member panel deserves kudos for penalizing a former Clark County Commission candidate.

The ethics panel on Wednesday levied $5,000 fines against former candidate Brooks Compton, his mother, Shari Compton, and her ex-husband, Steve Smith. They deserved that penalty, the maximum allowed under state law, in connection with a bogus 1996 ethics complaint against then-County Commissioner Paul Christensen.

Christensen defeated Compton in that year's ugly Democratic primary before losing to Republican Lance Malone in the general election. The ugliest smear was the complaint filed against Christensen by a woman who, it turned out, didn't exist.

The fictitious 72-year-old woman, Helena Lockridge, was actually the name of a character in a television soap opera. The complaint accused Christensen of using his position as chairman of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to obtain first-class trips for his wife and himself. The ethics panel tossed the complaint, but Christensen said it hurt his campaign against Malone.

The fictitious letter reportedly was faxed to the Ethics Commission by Shaughn Daily, Compton's campaign coordinator, who was fined $2,500 in March for his role. Brooks Compton argued that he had nothing to do with the letter and will appeal his fine, but the ethics panel obviously didn't buy his side of the story.

As we've said before, situations such as the smear against Christensen are bound to happen as long as individuals can file complaints against candidates in the heat of political campaigns. In that sense, the Ethics Commission becomes an unwilling accessory to disputes that can affect the outcome of an election.

While we applaud the Ethics Commission's ruling, we urge the panel to take a closer look at the mechanics of filing complaints. It's obvious the system is flawed when it allows someone to fax a complaint without having to verify his identification. How is it that "Helena Lockridge" was able to not only file a complaint but compel the commission to schedule a hearing?

Requiring complaints to be notarized might be one solution. If not, there has to be a better way than allowing anyone with access to a fax machine the opportunity to take cheap shots. The time has come when we should be doing all we can to clean up political campaigns.