Las Vegas Sun

October 20, 2014

Currently: 66° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Jon Ralston:

Rory Reid’s house of cards crumbles

Rory Reid kept using the word “transparent” last week to describe an elaborate ruse so he could accept a $750,000 contribution from a single political action committee — 75 times the legal limit.

He’s right. It was transparent. But not in the way he means it.

This was a transparent attempt to find a loophole in the campaign contribution laws by a gubernatorial candidate apparently desperate for money to try to revive his moribund campaign. And it was specifically designed to be opaque — a master PAC created with a name that belied its true purpose and 91 phony entities with names concocted to mislead.

Whether what Reid did was legal — or should be legal — will be determined later. But this was nothing short of a conspiracy to commit the equivalent of money laundering in a political campaign, where Reid solicited contributions in large amounts for a PAC ($850,000 during one reporting period) and then the money was washed through sham entities in smaller amounts ($10,000 increments) to appear in the candidate’s war chest.

Reid was abetted in this task by at least three people — his campaign manager, David Cohen, now a top aide to state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, who put his name on the umbrella PAC; Joanna Paul, who was on his campaign finance staff (in charge of compliance!) and whose name is on the phony PACs and whose home address was used for all 91; and Paul Larsen, his law partner who advised the candidate his scheme was legal.

Reid’s reaction to the scandal was the height of chutzpah, not only insisting on the transparency of the ploy, but to declare, “If this is a statement on anything, it is a statement on the failures of the campaign laws … If someone thinks it’s inappropriate, change the law.”

If anyone out there besides Team Reid thinks this is appropriate, please raise your hand.

Reid the Younger’s either real or practiced denial of responsibility for this highly dubious tactic reflects what was going on last summer in his campaign, a quixotic effort that never had much chance. Despite polls showing he was losing to Brian Sandoval by double-digit margins, Reid was confident he could win. His internal polls showed he was within single digits.

But he had a problem. Despite his prolific fundraising — he eventually would raise $2 million more than Sandoval — Reid knew he would need more for the home stretch. But rather than having a “let’s be transparent” meeting at his headquarters, as he would tell it, what ensued was more of a “how do we get more money and get around the laws” confab. What happened next is telling.

The man who insisted during the campaign “we need to build a foundation of trust in Nevada,” the man who claimed to have cleaned up the ethical morass left at the Clark County Commission by G-Sting, the man who assailed his opponent for being controlled by special-interest money, began a subterfuge that required cunning deception, murky ethics and special-interest cash.

Whenever you are holier than thou, sooner or later thou will not seem so holy.

Many questions remain.

Is it kosher to file legal documents with the state that purposely mislead as to a PAC’s true intention?

Why did Larsen give the secretary of state’s office an incomplete description of what the campaign was about to do — did he not know or was he not told? (He isn’t talking.)

If the secretary of state’s office says what Reid did was engage in “conduit contributions … expressly prohibited under Nevada’s election law,” was this indeed illegal? There is a law (Nevada Revised Statutes 294A.112) that bans giving or receiving a contribution in the name of another, but lawyers may disagree on whether it applies.

(More, including some documents, on my blog on the Sun’s website.)

The thorniest question: Did the campaign create separate accounts for each sham PAC, so the individual $10,000 contributions actually went somewhere else before going directly into Reid’s campaign account? If so, that is a whole other can of worms.

I have little doubt Secretary of State Ross Miller, who is in a political vise with Republicans ready to pummel him if he doesn’t act, will give this a thorough vetting. He has not shied away from tough calls. And this one will require a massive probe, including whether any of the donors knew what was afoot (I doubt it.).

The sad truth is Nevada’s campaign finance laws are a hodgepodge of illogical statutes, a porous amalgamation that allows schemers to find gaps. But if Reid continues to insist this was standard operating procedure, if Miller doesn’t fully expose what occurred here and if state lawmakers don’t use this as a catalyst for reform, that will be … transparent.

[email protected] / 870-7997

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 11 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Like father, like son. Anything to win, no matter how sleazy the ploy. Any wonder why we disdain politicians and rate them lower than ambulance chasers and used car salesmen?

  2. So we did vote in the right person for governor! For once, we got lucky at the ballot box.

  3. Rory Reid actually has a point here. Nevada has been notorious for buying and selling elections for decades. It's easy to just say, "Rory Reid is evil", but it's much harder to admit Nevada has a problem and offer a real solution.

    After all, how is this really different from all the shady outside groups that poured millions into pumping up Sharron Angle, Brian Sandoval, and Joe Heck last year? Oh yes, that's right, The Supreme Court issued the "Citizens United" decision that opened the door to even more corporate control of our elections!

    Why won't anyone talk about real solutions to the problem? Next door, Arizona has done it. And Maine has done it. And more and more cities and states are adopting it. Until we institute a clean money, clean elections system here in Nevada, we really can't complain about our politicians selling themselves to the highest bidder.

  4. He is my commissioner for a while, and I happily voted for him in November, but I don't condone creative accounting to skirt the law, or even the appearance of impropriety, regardless whether I agree with his policies or not. I expected better, as, I think, so should we all.

  5. THIS IS THE SAME TRANSPARENCY USED BY HARRY, OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS !!

    How can we work to solve our country's problems when the Democrats treat us like mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them bull#@&% ?

  6. And the list of liberal outlaws continues to grow. Rory had better take a few more lessons from Papa Munster. He hasn't quite figured out how to avoid getting caught yet.

  7. To atdleft: Now that's the best sugar-coated smooth-over we've heard in a while. Rory has been exonerated! (cough!)

  8. Anyone who has followed his fathers career would have to acknowledge that Rory is knock off of the old scammer himself. Harry has made a career of talking our of two sides of his mouth and saying one thing while doing another.

    Apparently Rory learned his lessons well.

  9. I heard that the master teachers are the Republicrats who bought a supreme court vote empowering the Koch brothers.

  10. What are we pushing from the side for the SOS to grab further power, or are we absolving him of complicity.

    Sounds like a sideways push for AB81 and AB 82. Both ill conceived, poorly written and result in the SOS being pivot man with a cob web of regulations and increased fees.

    Of course he did not put into the offered legislation that candidate should only raise money from people inside their districts and not from unions, corporations or pacs. That would be real reform.

  11. It is all legal and it will get worse thanks to the Supreme Court.