Editorial: Ethics panel as a political pawn

The state Ethics Commission has been used again as a pawn by those seeking to improperly influence a political race.

On Thursday the commission heard a frivolous complaint by Ken Santor, a candidate for state treasurer, against an opponent, Brian Krolicki. Santor believed he was maligned by a Krolicki ad asking voters how they could trust Santor with state funds. Santor lodged a complaint against Krolicki with the Ethics Commission.

Despite Santor's protest, the facts are clear.

A District Court found Santor guilty in 1988 of civil fraud and ordered him to pay $58,000 in actual damages and $5,000 in punitive damages to a business involved in an oil drilling scheme. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1989, ruling that Santor had "intentionally misrepresented material facts" in his dealings with the business, Precision Rolled Products.

Santor was upset that the ad accusing him of fraud ran so close to the end of the campaign. "What does that have to do with my office? The election is next Tuesday. This is pretty terrible," Santor told Sun reporter Cy Ryan. What is more terrible, however, is that the Ethics Commission had to waste its time on his silly complaint.

Santor might be embarrassed by the facts, but any candidate running for public office has the right to tell voters about an opponent's past business and political dealings. The Ethics Commission did the right thing Thursday, dismissing Santor's complaint because the ad is not false.

The 1997 campaign reform law allowing the Ethics Commission to police campaigns was an attempt to stop candidates from making false, malicious statements about an opponent. But this is just another case of a law with good intentions that has gone awry.

Under the law, the Ethics Commission can fine a candidate $5,000 for making false statements. In turn, the Ethics Commission can fine a candidate if he files a complaint with the Ethics Commission that is frivolous.

While it would seem that fines against frivolous charges would be a deterrent, it really misses the point of why this law should be abolished. The Ethics Commission already has enough on its plate in trying to handle the primary responsibility of its job, which is ruling on complaints lodged against elected officials.

Allegations of false information being spread during a heated political race are best left for the voters -- not the Ethics Commission -- to decide.

The Santor complaint against Krolicki was the first time the new law was triggered, but it's not as if this is the first case of the Ethics Commission being used to affect an election or settle an old score.

For example, Clark County Commissioner Paul Christensen had an ethics complaint filed against him in 1996 when he ran for re-election by "Helena Lockridge," a fictitious name used by a political operative working for one of his opponents, Brooks Compton. The complaint eventually was dismissed but not before the damage was done to Christensen's candidacy.

And Las Vegas Mayor Jan Laverty Jones, a candidate for governor, has had eight ethics complaints filed against her. Every one of them has been dismissed. The most recent one that the Ethics Commission threw out was filed by an old political nemesis, Steve Miller, whom she defeated in the mayor's race in 1991. Is that making Miller think twice about filing another complaint? No. He filed a new ethics complaint this week against the mayor.

The 1999 Legislature should repeal the law requiring the Ethics Commission to police false statements made during a campaign. A part-time board with a small staff, the Ethics Commission already has difficulty dismissing bogus complaints and issuing quick decisions if a complaint is legitimate. The Ethics Commission has much better uses of its time than refereeing political campaigns.

archive