Columnist Jon Ralston: When coincidences go too far

Friday, Sept. 20, 2002 | 5:38 a.m.

-- Mike Shustek, January 2002

"The question becomes, is this a sage thing to do? Is this something that you'd eventually think you might have to litigate against the people that you're going to take that money from, when you know you're going to hold an office when you're adverse to them?

Is this the kind of guy that you want to represent you as the head of the Consumer Advocate Division?"

-- John Hunt, September 2002

JOHN HUNT AND MIKE SHUSTEK have a lot in common. They are self-made men, they are preternaturally aggressive and they can talk and talk and talk a good game.

The Democrat who would be attorney general and the man who uses Broadway Joe to hawk his wares have something else in common, too: They are trying to buy credibility.

And it is the intersection of that desire -- Hunt in his campaign and Shustek in Nevada -- that has generated a controversy in the attorney general's race that could be problematic for both men.

Shustek, the man behind Vestin Mortgage, has raised more than a quarter of Hunt's war chest -- about $160,000 out of just under $600,000. That relationship has resulted in scrutiny from the media and an opportunistic complaint with the secretary of state's office by Hunt's opponent, Brian Sandoval, asking for a probe of whether the depth of the lender's commitment circumvented state campaign contribution caps.

But beyond the state complaint, an obvious political tactic designed to gather headlines and exacerbate Hunt's pain, what is really going on here? Why would Shustek invest so heavily in a candidate for attorney general? And why would Hunt allow one man, who has contributed to campaigns but never at this amount, to so dominate his donor report?

Shustek has been in and out of trouble with state regulators since 1998. Like so many other businessmen who open up shop here, Shustek invested not just in real estate, but in people. He clearly believed, as his statement above shows, that he was not getting a fair shake from the state because Jeff Guinn, the governor's son, is a competitor.

So Shustek began to purchase influence. He put ubiquitous consultant Sig Rogich and ambitious politician Dario Herrera on retainer. He solicited a former mayor (Jan Jones), a well-known businessman (Bob Forbuss) and a respected ex-gaming regulator (Steve DuCharme) for his board. He even hired a former state official who once signed a complaint against his business.

No doubt sensing that the people behind Sandoval are Republicans aligned with the governor, Shustek decided it might be wise to invest in an attorney general of his own. So he held a fund-raiser, asked his employees to attend and put together a substantial amount of Hunt's war chest.

Shustek never met with Sandoval, yet he insists -- and his employees interestingly enough echo this -- that Hunt "is the best man for the job." To quote Shustek, I believe in coincidences, but this is going too far.

Which brings us to Hunt and his political conundrum that has become a political problem. Sandoval was anointed early on as the next AG. With the gamers solidly behind Sandoval and money scarce, Hunt took a chance with Shustek's virtual blank check. Did Hunt check out Shustek, who had been recommended by a law partner? "I didn't do any research on him," Hunt replied.

Nice to know, especially because Hunt also took $10,000 from a company that Consumer Advocate Tim Hay has accused of engaging in deceptive business practices and was fined $2.5 million earlier this year by the Florida AG. Due diligence, thy name is not John Hunt.

And yet Hunt has criticized Sandoval for taking a $250 check from Sierra Pacific's Walt Higgins -- the Republican also has taken $2,200 from Sierra subsidiary Nevada Power. In fact, the Hunt campaign has tried to morph Sandoval into a Nevada Power executive because of that money and his advocacy when he represented the utility's shareholders for rate increases. Forget the demagoguery and obvious attempt to exploit hatred for Nevada Power. Ask yourself this question: Whatever favor $250 buys Higgins with Sandoval, as Hunt is alleging, then what kind of influence does $160,000 get Shustek with Hunt?

Hunt calls the comparisons between Shustek and Higgins "apples and oranges." He's almost right -- more like the gift of an apple orchard and an orange peel.

And if Hunt is so lustful for campaign money that he takes just about anything that is offered, to paraphrase him, is this the kind of guy who you want to represent you as the head of the Consumer Advocate Division?

Hunt, like Shustek, has tried to buy credibility and he has gotten there -- he has a chance to win. But when aggressiveness becomes recklessness, you have to ask: At what price?