Friday, Sept. 3, 2004 | 11:12 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- An organization of doctors today filed a complaint with the secretary of state alleging that the campaign financial disclosure regulations are being violated by groups behind two proposed constitutional amendments supported by trial lawyers.
Dr. Michael J. Fischer, president of the Nevada State Medical Association, said the law is being skirted by supporters of Question 4, which would roll back insurance rates by 20 percent, and supporters of Question 5, which would restrict the Legislature from enacting laws that limit jury awards in tort suits.
The names of the contributors are being hidden, Fischer said, through a manipulation of the law.
These two questions are being pushed by trial lawyers in Nevada. And the required 51,337 signatures have been gathered to put the issues on the November election ballot.
Gail Tuzzolo, spokeswoman for both questions, could not be reached for immediate comment.
The groups backing the two questions reported in their financial disclosure statements that they received $326,898 in "in kind" contribution, with $275,000 coming from Southwest Strategies, $22,000 from Tuzzolo and $10,000 from Amy Ayoub, a consultant and a former member of the Nevada State Athletic Commission.
In-kind contributions are those given for service in lieu of cash.
Fischer, however, said it appeared that the in-kind contributors were paid by an organization called People for a Better Nevada for the work. He said the group didn't have to report where it got its money or the names of its contributors, claiming it was exempt from the law.
So, he argued, the true source of the money to support these two questions is hidden.
"If this action is permitted to stand, it appears that any campaign organization desiring non-disclosure of its contributors can simply form a Nevada corporation, solicit and receive contributions to the corporation and pay the expenses of the political action committee formed to advocate for a ballot initiative (in the form of 'in kind' contributions expenditures), all the while guaranteeing the anonymity of the contributors," he wrote. "Unless successfully challenged, Nevada's heretofore open campaign reporting requirements will effectively become unenforceable."
A spokesman for the secretary of state's office said a violation, if proven, could result in a civil penalty of up to $5,000.
Doctors oppose the insurance rollback initiative petition because tucked away in the language is a section that could unravel the medical malpractice law enacted by the special session of the Legislature. That law puts a $350,000 cap on pain and suffering to shield physicians from big awards.
The second initiative would allow juries to award unlimited sums in tort suits, including those against doctors accused of malpractice.
Both initiatives would have to be passed by the voters this November and again in 2006 before they become effective.
Doctors also have an initiative on the ballot that would further tighten the malpractice laws to protect physicians. This would become law if approved this election.
archive
