Editorial: Keep our elections accessible

Friday, May 24, 2002 | 9:22 a.m.

Among the best candidates for public office are ordinary citizens -- owners of small businesses, schoolteachers, stay-at-home moms, shipping managers. These are people who understand both the needs of the general public and the financial pressures faced by individual taxpayers. The concept of citizen government would be endangered, however, if ordinary people began to sense that their participation as an elected official could result in personal financial ruin. In our litigious society, public officials can find themselves personally sued for their votes or their conduct that someone found objectionable. Or they can find themselves spending money to fend off bogus allegations that are politically motivated. That's why we agree with a Nevada attorney general's opinion this week, written by Deputy Attorney General Mark Krueger, which says officeholders may u se leftover campaign funds to defend themselves against ethics charges brought in relation to their public duties.

The issue that prompted the opinion involved Las Vegas Councilman Michael McDonald, who last year used $23,319 in campaign money to defend himself against charges filed with the state and city ethics commissions. Beyond the specifics of the McDonald case came a general question, posed by Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller to the attorney general's office. Heller wanted a precise definition of "personal use of campaign funds," which is prohibited by state law. He wanted to know if a public officer using campaign funds to defend himself against ethics charges was in fact converting those funds to a personal use.

After scouring state law, federal law and the laws of many other states, Krueger wrote a 20-page opinion concluding that such an expenditure does not fit the definition of personal use. A "personal" expenditure is one that would "exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as an officeholder," the opinion concluded. The finding doesn't give license to officeholders to engage in unethical conduct -- both the state and city ethics commissions, for example, ultimately determined that McDonald violated ethics laws. But it does give a measure of security to ordinary citizens who wish to serve in elective offices without having to put their personal finances at grave risk.