Complaint cites debt of Heller campaign

By David McGrath Schwartz, Cy Ryan

Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Rep. Dean Heller faces a federal election complaint by a rural Nevada resident with ties to his Democratic challenger, accusing the congressman of illegally holding over $273,000 in debt owed to his political consultant from the 2006 campaign.

The complaint, filed by Howard Herz of Minden. claims that holding over the debt to November Inc., owned by Mike and Lyndsey Slanker, “is a clear attempt to circumvent the FEC’s prohibition on corporate contributions to federal campaigns and is, in my opinion, entirely unethical.”

The Slankers now work for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is headed by Sen. John Ensign of Nevada.

Herz, a former neighbor of Democratic candidate Jill Derby for 25 years, said he is registered as a nonpartisan voter. He said he talked to Derby campaign manager David Mason about the complaint. Mason said he pointed Herz to publicly available documents.

Members of Congress are allowed to carry debt. But in August, before the current campaign cycle ramped up, Heller had the fifth most debt of any sitting congressman, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Back then, he had $366,000 in total debt. Currently, he has $321,000 in debt, and about $308,000 cash on hand, according to Heller’s latest FEC filing for a period that ended Oct. 15.

Derby has $2,000 in debt, and $245,000 cash on hand.

Heller spokesman Stewart Bybee said in a statement: “The Congressman pays a portion of the debt every month and will continue to do so. Carrying campaign debt is allowed under current law and is not an uncommon practice.”

FEC regulations prevent corporations from extending credit to a campaign except on terms similar to credit extended to other clients.

Mike Slanker did not respond to a request for an interview.

The Derby campaign called for Heller to pay off his debt. “Dean Heller should practice the fiscal responsibility he preaches and pay off his debt,” Derby said in a statement.

•••

Both Department 8 candidates for Clark County district judge — Doug Smith and Josh Kunis — have misbehaved, the state Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices determined last week.

The committee said that during the campaign, Kunis made “inaccurate and misleading” statements about the disciplinary record of Smith, a Las Vegas justice of the peace.

Meanwhile, Smith violated a rule on confidentiality by disclosing an ethics complaint he had filed against Kunis, according to the committee.

Kunis claimed Smith “has had an ethics complaint against him that has haunted him for the past three years.”

But the ethics committee noted that the complaint against Smith was dismissed in May 1999, five months after it was filed.

Kunis also accused Smith of having a conflict of interest in a 2007 criminal case. Attorney William B. Terry represented Smith in the 1999 ethics committee complaint. Eight years later, Terry represented a shooting suspect before Smith, who dismissed the charge.

The committee ruled that Terry’s appearance before Smith eight years after representing him “does not substantiate the implication of conflict” as raised by Kunis.

The committee also said Smith violated the panel’s confidentiality rule on complaints. Three hours after Smith had filed his ethics complaint against Kunis, he disclosed it during a television interview.

The committee took no disciplinary action related to any of the allegations.