Las Vegas Sun

January 27, 2015

Currently: 52° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Berkley calls on Heller to join her in banning outside attack ads

Shelley Berkley

Shelley Berkley

Seeking to both wrest control of her own campaign message and eliminate caustic attack ads backed by often anonymous third party groups, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley called on her Republican opponent Sen. Dean Heller to sign a pact banning outside spending on television ads in the U.S. Senate race.

The pact mimics one signed by the major party candidates in the sharply contested Senate race in Massachusetts. Both races could determine which party controls the Senate next year.

Saying she wants to keep everyone from labor unions and the chamber of commerce to George Soros and Karl Rove out of the Nevada race, Berkley implored Heller to sign the pact.

“As secretary of state, he has spoken eloquently about the importance of full disclosure of candidates and groups, about restoring public confidence in the political process and about the legal and moral obligation of fair and honest campaigning,” Berkley said. “His passion for this issue is compelling. Let’s take a stand together.”

Heller’s camp did not respond kindly.

“Yet another sideshow in the Shelley Berkley campaign circus,” Heller’s senior advisor Mike Slanker said. “Three-quarters of her contributions come from outside of Nevada. If the congresswoman is willing to send her out-of-state money back, we are willing to discuss her pact.”

Berkley’s proposal seemed as much a campaign ploy as a sincere effort to force third-party spending from the race. She did not approach Heller about the pact prior to holding a press conference.

Yet a Democratic operative said she’s serious about keeping outside spending from polluting the race. He noted the public disgust with the onslaught of negative ads and the strategic advantage of both campaigns being able to control their own messaging.

He said the pact was carefully written so as not to antagonize Heller’s camp.

Berkley said neither candidate should allow third parties “to do their dirty work” and each should be willing to “sign their own name” to the ads that air in the race.

Under the terms of the pact, spending would be banned not just from the so-called super PACs that have played such an influential role in the presidential campaign, but also the more traditional campaign committees of state and national parties. If either candidate benefits from an attack ad funded by an outside group, that candidate would have to pay 60 percent of the ad’s cost to a charity of the other candidate’s choice. Berkley said the penalty should dissuade outside groups from spending in Nevada.

“They would actually be hurting the candidate they are trying to support,” Berkley said. “Neither Dean nor I can afford that kind of penalty.”

In 2010, outside groups spent more than $14 million in the race between U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and former Nevada Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.

Berkley noted that Democratic groups outspent the Republican organizations in that race by more than $400,000, arguing that she isn’t offering the pact as a way to gain a financial leg up in the race.

In Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown donated $1,000 to an autism organization after a third party posted Google ads supporting his candidacy. However, whether the pact will actually succeed in keeping third parties out of such a critical race is still unclear.

In the presidential race, super PACs have spent more than $36 million on Republican presidential candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Super PACs can raised unlimited amount of money from corporations, unions and individuals.

Originally, President Obama had spoken out against super PAC spending on his behalf, but ultimately he acquiesced to concerns that Democrats would be far outspent if he didn’t allow a super PAC to operate in his favor.

While Berkley said she has signed the pact, she didn’t vow to stick with it if Heller decides not to sign it, saying she would cross that bridge when she comes to it.

It’s unlikely, however, she would consider the pact valid and request Democratic groups to unilaterally disarm.

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: 4 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. I like the idea of banning out of state money much more than Berkley's pact. In 2010 both Reid and Angle had about 95% of their funding come from out of state. In fact, according to, Reid topped the list with Angle only 1 or 2 places away for out of state funds.

    I think a state law banning out of state contributions would pass Constitutional muster.

    What I would really want to see is a law saying that only people eligible to vote in a given race can make contributions. That would get outside money out of local races as well.

    It wouldn't stop super-PACs and such, but it would sure put the brakes on candidates campaign finances.

  2. I agree emphatically!!!

    Ban away.

    These ads are idiotic, (most often) factually inaccurate, out-of-context, invariably mean-spirited, and ad NOTHING to the conversation.

    Please, please, please spare us!

  3. I agree with the ban. This looks like a smart move by Rep. Berkley.

    Because she knows Sen. Heller, appointed to this Senate Seat, not elected, appointed, doesn't have a message, never had one and never will get one at all, so he would have no alternative but to say no to the proposition.

    Because in the Tea/Republican Party world nowadays, that's all they got. BUY the election and make everything look like it's everyone else's fault but their own.

    People need to understand we're talking about a Nevada government official who has the distinction of voting not once, BUT TWICE, for the stupid Ryan Plan that would bankrupt the elderly by giving them an inferior health plan to replace Medicare.

    Not only that, but look at his overall voting record. He is not helping Nevada, he's hindering it. Typical Tea/Republican who believes in less government, but introduces all kinds of government intervention to make sure the government intervenes on every damn thing on their behalf and no one else's.

    I applaud Rep. Berkley for going after him on this. And going after him hard, relentless and often. Because all indications show he would never live up to an agreement like this. Because in the Tea/Republican Party world, they place way more emphasis on money than they do people.

    I still say the Nevada Tea/Republican Party blew their chance at this Senate Seat after Ensign quit. He ran with his tail between his legs, getting out while the getting was good, knowing he was going to get kicked out and/or prosecuted for corruption. Ensign is a sleaze bucket and, as far as I'm concerned, the Nevada Tea/Republican Party had their chance at this, and they blew it. Maybe Heller is blameless in this whole matter, but it's too bad. He has to face the music for his dumb political party. Enough is enough. Doesn't sound fair, but they MUST be held accountable for this Ensign debacle. And I intend to cast my vote to make sure they understand they blew it.

    Rep. Berkley's got my vote. Her time in Congress has been exemplary, her votes have been timely and rational and she clearly has the best interests of Nevada in mind.

    I'm sick and tired of this Tea/Republican Party extreme and radical agenda. I have no alternative but to vote all them bums out of power.

    It's getting old looking at how Tea/Republicans vote all the time and then justify why they voted that way to do...nothing...not a damn thing.

    We need forward momentum to fix not only Nevada, but America too.

    Heller ain't it. I just hope people see this sham of a divided government is crap.

    Serious buyer's remorse time. Toss him.

  4. Shelley must be low on PAC money.