Editorial: Frightening standard for political dialogue

Every time the state Ethics Commission fines a political candidate for making what it believes are false or misleading statements, the commission unintentionally gives more ammunition to those who believe that the government's role in this area should be abolished. The latest example happened last Friday when the Ethics Commission fined North Las Vegas Constable Herb Brown a record $10,000 for statements made during his 1998 campaign.

The commission wasn't happy with Brown's assertions that he was "the only qualified candidate" for North Las Vegas constable and that opponent Steve Bergstrom didn't have the education or training for the post. As the Sun's Lisa Snedeker reported, commissioners found the campaign flier misleading since it did not state Bergstrom was a former police officer or that he had completed 400 hours of law enforcement training.

Under this frightening standard developed by the Ethics Commission, it would now appear that even the use of an opinion could be grounds for a fine. Can anyone think of a candidate, during the heat of a campaign, who hasn't used the rhetorical claim -- as Brown did -- that his opponent doesn't possess the necessary qualifications to hold office?

Most voters employ healthy skepticism when candidates promote themselves or try to sully the reputation of their opponents. So during a campaign it should be the responsibility of the media and voters to determine the accuracy of a candidate's campaign statements.

If a candidate believes he has been libeled or slandered, then he should seek a remedy through the courts by filing a lawsuit -- just as any other citizen has the right to do. The 1999 Legislature should immediately get rid of the Ethics Commission's oversight of political campaigns before it does any further damage.

archive