Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Report raises questions about campaign donations to justices

A report released Tuesday indicates that Nevada's Supreme Court justices rely on hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from lawyers, lobbyists and gaming companies -- groups that often have cases before the justices in the courtroom.

The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada released the report, which found that the seven sitting justices raised a total of $1.6 million from interest groups since 2000.

The report examined 300 Supreme Court cases since 2000 and found that half of the involved parties had contributed to at least one Supreme Court justice.

"You have a system where at the very least the appearance of impropriety and objectivity is undermined," said Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, who also expressed concerns about the findings.

Most of the campaign contributions -- about 70 percent -- came from lawyers, lobbyists or gaming, said Paul Brown, the Southern Nevada Director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

Brown said the group is not charging that the Supreme Court justices have been unethical.

But, he said, the problem of contributions to Supreme Court justices exists nationwide, and he argued that the state Legislature or the governor should form a committee to look at the issue and recommend ways that justices could run for office without creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.

He also recommended that Supreme Court and District Court judges receive public election money. The funds could be raised by asking attorneys for a voluntary $50 contribution they could pay when they renew their licenses and by charging "small fees" for civil and criminal lawsuits.

Even justices that face no opposition are pulling in more and more donations, said Jim Hulse, a retired University of Nevada, Reno professor and current chairman of the Common Cause/Nevada, an advocacy group that has researched campaign finance contributions.

"The amount of money that goes into those Supreme Court races, particularly to incumbents that have no real opposition, is really unhealthy," he said.

Peck said some of the contributions even come out of obligation. He said it is clear that some law firms "certainly feel a certain pressure to contribute."

In the past few years, state Supreme Court races have become more politicized, Brown said, prompting special interests to direct more money into campaigns.

That's partly because court cases have determined that judges have a right to express more of their personal views during elections, he said.

Of the $1.6 million raised by the sitting Justices since 2000, the top five contributors were from the gaming industry, with Mandalay Bay Group heading the pack with $126,500 in contributions, according to the study released Tuesday.

The top sixth- through 10th-ranked contributors were from lawyer or lobbyist groups, with Mainor & Harris topping the list at $31,500, the study found.

Mike Sloan, executive vice president at Mandalay Resort Group, said his company agrees that the amount spent on all campaigns, including Supreme Court races, is becoming too much.

Mandalay Resort Group has given money to judges at all levels -- from municipal to Supreme -- when they approach the company for contributions, he said. He called it part of the company's "strong civic responsibility."

"I don't know that we have any particular interest in the Supreme Court as opposed to other parts of the judiciary or Legislature," he said.

Mandalay Resort Group has supported proposals to limit campaign contributions to justices and to put justices on a system similar to the one in Missouri, Sloan said.

In that state, judges are appointed by the governor. A year later, voters can cast a ballot in favor or against keeping the judge. If the judge does not receive a majority of ballots in his or her favor, the governor appoints a new judge at the end of the rejected judge's term.

"It does address the problem that we're having with the perceived influence of special interest," Brown said. "That would be something we'd be willing to look at, too. Our first choice is a publicly financed election."

archive