Critics rip secrecy of party cash

Five hundred dollars and one penny.

In the world of Nevada politics, that figure is the difference between light and dark.

Donors who give more than $500 to a local political candidate will see their names on campaign disclosure reports. That's the law.

But those who want to avoid the spotlight and remain anonymous can do so.

The preferred method: Giving unlimited funds to a political party or legislative caucus, which then funnels the cash to candidates.

That way, the campaign finance report won't read, "John Doe, owner of XYZ Casino, $1,000." It'll read, "Republican (or Democratic) Party, $1,000."

Critics, who will push for reform at the 1997 Legislature, say this form of hidden money bolsters the power of party honchos who pass it on to needy candidates.

Nowhere is the power more obvious than in state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas. Two years ago, they spent a combined $660,000 in caucus money on Senate raises.

Most Senate candidates receive their largest source of campaign money from caucus funds doled out by Raggio and Titus. Critics say this makes junior senators beholden to party leaders and forces them to vote the party line against their will on many bills.

They also say such loyalty makes it easier for a powerful lawmaker such as Raggio to acquire state money for university buildings and other public works projects in his Northern district.

Of the 14 Clark County Republicans and Democrats running for Senate seats in the Nov. 5 general election, nine have received more money from party caucuses than any other single source.

They include Democratic Sen. Ray Shaffer ($15,000) and Republican challenger Terry Holtz ($20,000) in District 2; Democrat Valerie Wiener ($11,048) in District 3; Democratic Sen. Joe Neal ($6,176) in District 4; and GOP Sen. Ray Rawson ($10,000) and Democratic challenger Daryl Nakamura ($5,000) in District 6.

Also included are Titus ($5,000) and Republican challenger Charles Muth ($10,000) in District 7; and GOP candidate Dennis Cobb ($20,000) in District 8.

Others who have received cash infusions from the caucus are incumbent Republican Sen. Sue Lowden ($6,800) in District 3 and Democrat Steve Sisolak ($7,008) in District 5.

Through Aug. 19, the Senate Republican Leadership Conference spent $68,800 on GOP candidates. The Senate Democratic Caucus handed out $49,232.

Expect those numbers to swell between now and the general election. In 1994, the Senate GOP caucus gave $428,300 to candidates statewide. Democratic leaders gave $232,050. Those were by far the largest sources of financing for legislative races.

Because of state law, the public doesn't know whether the caucus money given to a candidate came from one deep-pocketed contributor with a vested interest in the race or from a series of smaller fries.

The money typically is raised at dinners where attendees pay $100 to $500 a head.

An example is Raggio, who said he raised about $60,000 at a July fund-raiser at The Mirage hotel-casino. Facing light opposition in his re-election bid, he conceded he'll contribute some of the money to GOP Senate candidates.

Defenders of the campaign financing loophole say many people wouldn't participate in the political process if they couldn't make anonymous contributions.

But opponents say the public has a right to know where campaign money comes from. They also say the large caucus donations make candidates beholden to the leading senators in their party.

Raggio, the state's most powerful legislator, staunchly defends the system.

"There's a lot of people who like to participate in campaigns who don't like to be on a list," Raggio said. "They don't want their name in the paper."

Republican Secretary of State Dean Heller, a former assemblyman, takes a different view.

He vows to press the 1997 Legislature to approve campaign finance reform. He wants to lower the threshold of reportable contributions by $400 so that every donation over $100 becomes public record.

Heller also wants to extend that threshold to caucuses and parties to give the public a better idea of who contributes to legislative races.

"It would bring caucuses and state parties to the same level of disclosure individual candidates have," Heller said. "What is the point of having limits on campaign contributions to candidates if you can filter money through parties or caucuses?"

A similar bill passed the Assembly last year but died in the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Critics claimed Raggio had the bill killed because it would have hurt the caucuses' ability to raise money. But Raggio said the bill came to the Senate too late in the session to be given proper consideration.

Raggio said he would reconsider the bill and has said he'd support lowering the reportable threshold to $300. But he still has serious reservations.

"I don't see the difference between $500 and $300 and $100," he said. "We once tried to put a cap on the amount of money a candidate could spend, but that was declared unconstitutional."

Titus supported the reform bill that died in the Senate and is campaigning for its approval in her re-election bid. She said the issue is popular with nonpartisan voters, who often represent the swing votes in elections.

"It (reform) will make it hard for an individual to raise money against an incumbent, especially one in the majority party," Titus said. "But it would make the system more palatable for the public."

As Shaffer noted, the Republican caucus has raised more money than its Democratic counterpart in recent years because it enjoys a 13-8 majority in the Senate. Contributors naturally want to back winners. That's why the gaming industry, which once threw most of its federal support behind congressional Democrats, has shifted its donations to the new GOP majority.

"The big money will go to Bill Raggio and the Republicans if they're happy with the way they're running the Senate," Shaffer said.

Campaign finance reform first came into vogue nationally in the 1970s following the Watergate scandal, part of which involved large amounts of cash flowing illegally into President Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign.

Limits were placed on contributions made by individuals and political action committees. But that forced candidates to spend more time raising funds.

This was exacerbated in Nevada in the 1980s, when political parties grew weaker and less reliable as funding sources for legislative candidates. That gave rise to the legislative caucuses, the most potent of which are in the Senate.

First-time candidates in particular believe caucus contributions provide valuable start-up money for items such as campaign posters. They argue that if caucuses are forced to reveal the sources of their revenue, those donations will dry up and incumbents will gain further advantages.

"One of the disadvantages to a newcomer is that an incumbent can make contributors nervous about supporting a challenger," Cobb said. "Almost no one will give me a donation for more than $500 because they don't want to be reported on my form. I think it's a shame that it has gotten to that point."

Holtz said caucus funds "help people like me who think they can do a good job but don't have the name recognition to get money from the general public." But he also said he sympathizes with those who argue for more disclosure.

"If you're donating money, you shouldn't be ashamed of it," Holtz said. "It should be public knowledge."

Muth, fighting an uphill battle against the better-financed Titus, said he'd support full disclosure of caucus donations if there were no limitations on individual contributions. That way, a deep-pocketed contributor who didn't fear the incumbent could make it easier for a challenger to mount a successful campaign.

"I can then spend my entire time talking about issues rather than going from business to business begging for dollars," Muth said.

Caucus money usually goes to the candidates deemed most likely to win their races. For instance, Holtz's GOP primary opponent, Tino Mendoza, got no help from the Republican caucus. Likewise, Wiener defeated two other Democrats, Lou Toomin and Dr. Juan Manzur, who received no caucus support.

Skeptics say Raggio and Titus demand loyalty from candidates in return for caucus support. But the two leaders denied it, and so did all the first-time candidates contacted by the SUN.

"No one has exerted any influence over me or told me I have to vote a certain way," Wiener said. "I'm running my campaign like a business. If I didn't have that caucus money, I would have readjusted accordingly."

archive