Jon Ralston looks at ethics accusations leveled by Dina Titus against Jim Gibson and puts them into the larger context of what role money plays in Nevada politics

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 | 7:21 a.m.

Against the backdrop of a political corruption trial that has twisted elements of Alfred Hitchcock (Erin Kenny as The Woman Who Knew Too Much but has too much Vertigo) and Jacqueline Susann (Mike Galardi's Bathroom of the Dolls) comes a gubernatorial race with even more serious allegations of corruption.

State Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus can couch it any way she wants, but she now is calling Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson a corrupt man. She has erected a Web site dedicated to the charge and has a catchy name for the practice (as she has for almost everything): Pay to Play.

That is, contributors pay for the privilege of getting into the game, thus purchasing Gibson's votes for projects, either as an incentive shortly before the vote or a reward soon afterward.

That is, he is taking a bribe.

Titus can sugarcoat it all she wants - it is wrong but not illegal, she laments. But she is accusing Gibson of the same crime, in figurative terms, that ex-Clark County Commissioners Dario Herrera and Mary Kincaid-Chauncey are literally on trial for in downtown Las Vegas.

I have been saying for years that what the ex-commissioners are accused of is just a shade different from the legalized bribery that the campaign financing system has become. Whether or not Gibson, who has taken large amounts of money from developers who do business in Henderson, is an especially egregious violator will play out during the campaign.

But I assure you that if this is the standard Titus is setting - politicians who take money in certain proximity to votes are selling their vote - she and others will be hoisted on this petard. (Gibson returned fire Tuesday afternoon accusing Titus of taking "dollars to dance with Dina" - see, he can be cute, too - and listing certain legislative votes tied to contributors.)

Propinquity in the local government example with Gibson may make the appearance especially egregious. But does anyone believe that Titus and other legislators are not accepting gobs of money from business interests that are looking for favors (i.e. votes) in that 120-day time frame in odd-numbered years?

And is the point that state lawmakers may suffer from some Erin Kenny-like dizzy spell that would cause them to forget a large contribution made in an even-numbered year by the time the legislative session rolls around a few months later?

The only difference - in general - is that legislative lobbyists and their clients have to make their investments more in advance or shortly after the session (30 days at least). They, too, under the Titus argot, are paying to play. And she knows it.

None of this is to mitigate what Titus is pointing out about Gibson or that it's not legitimate fodder for discussion.

As she points out on the Web site - paytoplaywithjim.com - you can find more than a dozen votes the mayor cast that came in close proximity to him receiving money for his gubernatorial run. And the $150,000 developer Tony Marnell bundled to Gibson while the mayor was helping move a gargantuan Marnell project forward is obscene.

But it is no more obscene than the $300,000 contribution Kenny Guinn received from Mandalay Resort Group companies in 1998 or the hundreds of thousands from other gaming corporations that Guinn and other statewide contenders have received.

The gaming industry pays more than any other single interest to play - and no one would suggest the casinos are doing anything other than attempting to influence legislation with money, just as Mike Galardi on a much smaller scale (yes, much smaller) tried to do with local governments.

So, ultimately, it will be about who can create the most pungent aroma of corruption, which will become a standard technique during a year with G-Sting trials (ex-County Commissioner Lance Malone goes on trial around the day of the primary election) in the background.

I just wish that Titus, who is running as a plain-spoken woman of the people, would simply say what she means - i.e. that Jim Gibson is corrupt, even if the corruption is legal. And Gibson, too, if he is going to make the charge, should steer away from cuteness - he doesn't wear it well anyhow - and dispense with genteel rhetoric designed to soften the blow.

Gibson also should at least propose some reforms, as Titus has done, although none will be effective so long as people of low character run for office. Once the ethics reform locomotive has left the station, however, it cannot be derailed on its way to Session '07 in Carson City, where the real train wrecks occur, usually as those who have paid to play watch, smile and cash in.