Gaming board gets Malone flier case

Cy Ryan and Adrienne Packer

Friday, April 28, 2000 | 11:07 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The U.S. Attorney's Office declined today to prosecute those responsible for an anonymous flier attacking Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone and the case instead will be handled by the Gaming Control Board.

Sources close to the ongoing case confirmed that FBI files will be turned over to the Gaming Control Board for its own investigation of the gaming licensees involved.

Station Casinos and lobbyist Tom Skancke admitted late last week that they were behind the anonymous mailers that lampooned Malone and said the first-term commissioner cannot be trusted.

Malone infuriated Station Casinos executives in January when he assured them he would vote against a competing casino in Spring Valley, then decided to support it at the last minute.

Malone and his attorney, Don Campbell, filed a lawsuit against the parties responsible for the flier, saying they violated the state statute that prohibits anonymous campaign mailers. They later dropped the lawsuit when they learned the federal grand jury was looking into the case.

The controversial mailer also prompted two other lawsuits.

Coast Resorts Chairman Michael Gaughan filed a suit against those responsible for the flier, saying Coast Casinos was defamed because its name was listed on the mailer. Gaughan had included the Fiesta Hotel Corp. in the suit, but today excused the hotel-casino after Fiesta owner George Maloof assured him he had no knowledge of the flier.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit arguing the law is unconstitutional because it violates the right to free speech.

On Thursday, Deputy Attorney General Kateri Cavin filed a motion to dismiss the ACLU lawsuit in federal court in Las Vegas. Cavin wrote that the state statute complies with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

"The attorney general's office will vigorously defend the statute, arguing it is constitutional because it furthers the state's interest in fostering an informed electorate and in preserving the integrity of the electoral process by eliminating both actual and perceived corruption," the state's statement says.

Cavin wrote in her motion that the 1997 law requiring disclosure was carefully tailored to comply with a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in an Ohio case.

The ACLU contends the Ohio case supports its argument that the Nevada law requiring disclosure is unconstitutional.

The Ohio case involved Margaret McIntyre who drafted, printed, distributed and paid for leaflets opposing an increase in a school tax. She was fined by the state of Ohio because her name did not appear on the printed material.

The U.S. Supreme Court found the prohibition in the Ohio law to be overbroad. The court said the Ohio law applied "not only to the activities of candidates and their organizers, but also to individuals acting independently and using only their own modest resources."

Cavin said the Nevada law exempts individuals acting on their own behalf from the ban on anonymous political communications. And that shows the law complies with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein said the exception -- an amendment made after the McIntyre ruling -- only raises more questions about the legality of the statute.

He said wealthy individuals are able to distribute fliers about candidates, but the average citizen wouldn't like be able to afford it.

"There is a real equal protection question," Lichtenstein said. "Big money interests, rich folks, can do it. I don't know how that is related to keeping big money interests from unduly affecting the election."