Columnist Jon Ralston: When politicizing is beneficial

Friday, March 9, 2001 | 4:01 a.m.

Jon Ralston, who publishes the Ralston Report, writes a column for the Sun on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com

HERE IS a difficult concept for many in the media and public life to understand: Just because something is politically motivated does not render it unworthy of substantive consideration.

Politics can act as a powerful rhetorical bullet to shoot the messenger, thus killing any chance of reasonable discussion of the merits of an issue. The lack of mutual exclusivity between politics and substance was in abundance this past week.

Legislative Democrats have been playing politics with the deregulation issue and for months have advocated stopping the utilities from selling their power plants. Now, miraculously, the governor and the Republicans -- and even the utilities -- seem to agree. Maybe they were right?

Over at the county, Chairman Dario Herrera clearly was looking for headlines when he exploited the city's misery over regulators investing with those they regulate. But wasn't he right that the county should have a policy prohibiting such investments?

But those two examples were minor compared to this pair of incidents showing how substance and politics can intersect:

* Who did it, not what is it? Las Vegas City Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald's campaign did yeoman's work in tying an ethics complaint filed against her to Mark Solomon, who is running against the incumbent. There's no question this was campaign-motivated.

But what about the next question: Is there a legitimate question to be raised about Boggs McDonald declaring a trip to a Notre Dame football game as an in-kind campaign contribution instead of a gift? Well, of course there is. There are actually several issues here.

First, Boggs McDonald says she disclosed the trip as a contribution because it would limit the company's donations in the future because of spending caps. But that begs the real question: How can a pleasure trip to see The Fighting Irish be an in-kind campaign contribution? Here is how state law defines in-kinds:

"The value of services provided in kind for which money would have otherwise been paid, such as paid polling and resulting data, paid direct mail, paid solicitation by telephone, any paid paraphernalia that was printed or otherwise produced to promote a campaign and the use of paid personnel to assist in a campaign."

Now where does this fit into that definition? Of course it was a gift. Now, the question becomes: Should you accept this kind of gift from someone who might come before you? Station Casinos valued the trip at $2,200. The city's ethics code says you can't accept a gift over $100, a reasonable threshold. But the code, coincidentally, contains an exception for ... campaign contributions.

Finally, there is the question of whether the appearance, at least, of coziness with Station Casinos is appropriate. That is, should public officials be flying on corporate jets to get places? No, of course not. But it happens all the time -- governors do it, legislators do it, local government officials do it.

Yes, this was politically motivated. But Boggs McDonald better have answers to these questions, especially for someone who has made ethics and integrity a hallmark of her career.

* Who did it, not what does it mean? The media furor this week over Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch signing onto the Nevada delegation's NCAA bill omitted one fundamental fact: Can't Hatch sign onto that measure and the NCAA betting ban? After all, it's not intellectually inconsistent to support a ban on illegal and legal wagering, is it?

Hatch's office couldn't confirm the senator's position on the betting ban, nor could John Ensign's office -- the Nevada senator jumped to take credit for the Hatch addition, one day after Harrah's Entertainment's Phil Satre actually announced Hatch's position.

The truth here is that Hatch was part of the 1992 compromise that gave Nevada an exemption on the sports wagering question. And it was hardly news last week that he was with the industry because he announced his position months ago at a fund-raiser here under the aegis of the Nevada Resort Association. And while he is unlikely to become a co-sponsor when the NCAA introduces its legislation, other senators surely will sign onto both bills.

So amid the rush to take credit for Hatch's support for the delegation bill, which is a perfect example of politically motivated substance, the point was missed: Both measures could pass this year and be supported by many members of the Club of 100. They are not mutually exclusive.