Campaign disclosure forms give candidates nightmares

Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2000 | 9:46 a.m.

After an attempt was made to improve the forms, new problems emerged, partly through a misunderstanding of the law, partly through an attempt to simplify the forms.

The way Secretary of State Dean Heller and the attorney general's office interpreted the law, candidates no longer had to total contributions and expenses, they just had to list them.

After complaints were relayed to him Tuesday, Heller said he will create an "optional" place for totals in the rest of the year's disclosure reports, and his office will tally the totals and provide them on the Internet.

He also acknowledged that his office made a mistake in how the Jan. 15 reports should be completed by candidates who raised more than $10,000 in 1999 and are up for election in 2000. The original forms didn't leave space to show exactly whom candidates paid for various services.

He said a page will now be provided so that candidates can identify their expenditures of over $100 by name and address. The page will be provided on the office's Web site at sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/

Candidates have complained before about forms created by Heller, calling them confusing and illogical. AB130 in 1999 was supposed to improve the forms, but apparently has not.

"It's a nightmare," said Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas. "There's no place for totals, there's no place to show what I raised the previous year or the last campaign."

There's no place for in-kind contributions or expenditures. And the language of the form has places to report "above $100" and "less than $100," but no place for $100 expenses and contributions.

"The forms are cumbersome to use, not user friendly at all," said Paul Brown, Southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, which tracks the campaign finance reports.

Heller's office said the elimination of totals stemmed from an amendment proposed by Sen. Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, and passed by the Legislature.

But O'Donnell said election officials misunderstood what the law's intent was.

O'Donnell said he wanted the law changed so candidates could simply list chronologically where checks came from and not keep a cumulative total of contributions from one source.