Gibbons’ aide: “Communist” remark taken out of context

Benjamin Grove

Friday, Jan. 21, 2005 | 11:18 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., this week said anyone who opposes the corporate-funded inauguration celebrations is a communist.

Gibbons made the remark during the Wednesday broadcast of NBC's "Nightly News With Brian Williams." Reporter Lisa Myers interviewed Gibbons for a story about corporation money that paid for roughly $40 million worth of inauguration partying this week in Washington to celebrate President Bush's re-election.

The story noted that critics have accused corporations of donating money to inaugurals as one more way to buy influence with Bush and the Republican Party.

The NBC segment concluded: "But one congressman has no use for complaints about corporate-funded celebrations. 'Anybody who is against that obviously must be a communist,' says Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nev."

Myers then immediately followed Gibbons' statement with this final commentary: "It's a snapshot of Inauguration 2005 -- a celebration of democracy and deep corporate pockets."

Gibbons, who plans to announce in a few months whether he will run for governor of Nevada, was not joking when he made the statement, spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said. But, she said, the remark was badly taken out of context.

Gibbons had explained more at length to NBC that he firmly believes that everyone in the United States, including corporate executives, have the freedom, under limits of the law, to spend their money for political events and to lobby lawmakers, Spanbauer said.

"That's one of the tenets of our society," she said.

The Sun made numerous attempts to contact Gibbons to ask him about the remark but he did not return phone calls and could not be found at an inaugural event where he had been scheduled to appear Thursday.

Fred Wertheimer, founder of Democracy 21, a Washington nonprofit that works to curb money in politics, said Gibbons' comment was "absurd."

"Its a pejorative and defensive attempt to defend something that is highly questionable at best," he said. "It brings back memories of the Red Scare of the 1950s. It's a ridiculous thing for a congressman to claim."

The Gibbons remark probably won't hurt him much in Nevada, however, where a strong Libertarian streak drives opposition to government regulation, even regulation of corporate access to politicians, said UNLV political science professor Ted Jelen.

Still, Gibbons overstated his case with a strange comment, Jelen said. Critics certainly can challenge corporate donations without being communist, Jelen said.

"Even if the rules are technically legal, one has the right to question whether certain rules are too lax or allow for disproportionate influence," Jelen said.

Political watchdog groups agreed. The inaugural contributions are another investment in a lobbyist's relationship with the White House, said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

"They are hoping that they get a sympathetic ear from the administration in the future," Weiss said. "The American public ought to know about it and the public ought to know who is giving money and what they likely are getting in return."

Lobbyists have said their inaugural donations were good corporate citizenship.

One donor was the Nuclear Energy Institute, which gave $100,000 to the inauguration. NEI is the top nuclear industry lobby group and leading advocate for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which Gibbons and Nevada officials oppose.

"(Bush) is a big supporter," Nuclear Energy Institute lobbyist John Kane told the Washington Post last week. "Our donation is just a small way of supporting him."

But inaugural chairman Jeanne Phillips told NBC the money corporations donated to the inauguration bought them only good tickets to inaugural events and a chance to see the president.

Inauguration events this year included 10 balls; three "candlelight dinners" with top Bush campaign and inaugural donors (those who gave $100,000 or more); a youth rock concert; and a "Celebration of Freedom" gathering near the White House Wednesday night that featured fireworks.

Inauguration officials this week have said that events such as the concert and fireworks would not be possible without corporate sponsorship.

Democracy 21's Wertheimer said corporate donations should be banned.

"The inauguration belongs to all people," he said. "We shouldn't have a system in which wealthy individuals are able to do a big favor for the president and potentially gain access and influence in return."

In a study this month, watchdog group Public Citizen found that two corporations, Ameriquest and Marriott International, skirted the Inaugural Committee's $250,000 donation cap rule by donating through its subsidiaries.

Public Citizen advocates stricter control over inauguration donations, including making them subject to the same rules as campaign donations. That would mean no corporate donations.

"I think even the Communist Central Committee could see some reasonableness in that," Public Citizen's Brad White said.

Nearly 100 corporations made donations. More than 40 individual donors contributed, including Las Vegas Sands Corp. owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam Ochshorn Adelson, who gave $250,000 each, the maximum allowed.