GOP leads the PACs in Nevada

If Nevada's political action committees are a barometer, Republicans will still dominate Congress, John Ensign will overwhelm Ed Bernstein for U.S. Senate and Shelley Berkley will barely retain her House seat.

Though still early in the 2000 election season, Nevada PAC money that flowed to federal candidates from last year through March 31 showed Republicans winning the overall battle for campaign funds and "party building" soft money.

Those PACs, dominated by gaming, mining, development and utility companies, also heavily favored Republican Ensign over Democrat Bernstein and narrowly supported Democrat Berkley over chief GOP foe Jon Porter.

"People send signals by how much money they contribute," UNLV political science professor Tim Fackler said. "If you get PAC money early on, you're seen as a legitimate candidate."

Republican candidates received $369,636 compared to $192,040 for Democrats from the state's 19 active federally approved PACs, according to the FECInfo website. Even adding the $50,850 Democrats received from Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund based in Washington, D.C., the GOP retained a large advantage.

That advantage also spilled over into soft money, where the Republicans lead $860,000 to $573,621 this election cycle. That money, which can be donated in unlimited amounts, goes primarily to national party committees that help elect candidates to Congress and the White House.

Some Nevadans, such as Paul Brown of the Progressive Leadership Alliance, are not exactly thrilled that soft money is unrestricted. The alliance, which represents labor, environmental and women's organizations, has been pushing for state campaign finance reform.

"Soft money is a big gaping hole in the federal campaign reform effort because there are no limits on what the PACs can give," Brown said. "It throws the concept of 'one person, one vote' out the window."

But seven of the state's most powerful companies have given federal soft money this election cycle through their PACs. Most of that money came from the Mirage Resorts, Mandalay Resort Group and International Game Technology PACs, all of which gave more to Republicans.

One reason for the disparity is that gaming, like many other industries, tends to put its money behind the party that controls Congress. That's why many gaming companies gave more to Democrats in the early 1990s. But that trend shifted after 1994, when the GOP took over. Through the first quarter of this year Mandalay Resort Group gave $250,000 in soft money to Republicans but only $50,000 to Democrats.

"The people who are in leadership of the various houses tend to get more money than those who are not," said Mandalay Senior Vice President Mike Sloan, who coordinates his company's PAC. "With the majority party not only do you have the leadership but the committee chairmanships."

An ear for gaming

Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman, whose company leads Nevada and ranks 16th among the nation's corporate PACs with $553,621 in soft money this election cycle, said emphasis is placed on politicians who listen to the gaming industry's concerns.

He cited as an example the support the industry received from Congress in 1998 that allowed casino employees to continue to receive free meals from their employers without having to pay taxes for that food.

"We give money based on the ability to forge relationships," Feldman said. "If they're willing to give us an ear for a few minutes to listen to the concerns of our employees and our company, we're more than willing to work with them."

Since corporations are prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates, they either form PACs or contribute to them. PACs typically get most of their money from their own corporate executives and employees. Labor union PACs likewise get much of their money from members' dues.

Though there are no restrictions on soft money, PACs may only give $5,000 per election per year to a candidate, with primaries and general elections counting separately. The state's active PACs have given about $1.8 million to GOP candidates and $1.3 million to Democrats since 1980.

State Democrats sometimes have been able to make up the difference by getting heavy monetary contributions from labor unions based in Washington, D.C. But in every Nevada race for Congress going back at least to 1990, the winner was the candidate who received the most money from gaming. Monitoring Nevada PACs is key to understanding gaming's view of candidates.

Nevada PAC favoritism toward GOP candidates this year is most evident in the Senate race between the front-runners, former Rep. Ensign and attorney Bernstein. Ensign received $103,500 from state PACs while his leading Democratic foe was shut out. Bernstein's only salvation was $7,000 from Reid's PAC.

"PACs want to go with a winner," UNLV political science department Chairman Ted Jelen said. "They want access to a U.S. senator, and it looks like our next senator will be John Ensign. Bernstein's campaign has been lackluster and nonexistent."

Ensign's advantage

This gulf between Ensign and Bernstein is a microcosm of the former congressman's overall fund-raising advantage. Through March 31, the Republican raised more than $2.5 million, including nearly $1 million from PACs. Bernstein raised only $1.1 million, including $505,000 from his personal accounts and only $59,510 from PACs.

Ensign's father, Mandalay Resort's Mike Ensign, happens to be one of the most powerful gaming executives on the Strip. But Ensign campaign manager Mike Slanker said he believes his candidate's own experience as a former gaming executive and House member who is a "known entity" is what has attracted Nevada PACs.

"John has worked extremely hard to get a lot of supporters," Slanker said. "The PACs in Nevada represent the major employers in Nevada. It is important that you have that support."

Bernstein spokeswoman Kelley Benander said getting the most money from PACs is not necessarily a strength because it can force a candidate to become beholden to special interests. But she said she expects her candidate to raise more money as the race "begins to tighten."

"Ed has had to go through nontraditional methods like putting in his own money," Benander said. "Ed frequently says he's not beholden to anyone."

Based on their donations Nevada PACs point to a closer race between Berkley and state Sen. Porter in the battle for the congresswoman's Southern Nevada seat. Excluding the $3,000 she received from Reid's leadership fund, Berkley has raised only $8,000 more from state PACs than has Porter. But she also has a nearly 3-to-1 overall fund-raising edge over her top rival.

"Berkley is perceived at least by the national media as quite vulnerable," Jelen said. "She could lose, so if I'm a PAC, I'd make sure I had a foot in both camps."

More than half of Nevada's PAC money went to candidates from other states, most notably New Jersey, where some Las Vegas casinos have gaming interests. Topping the list of outside recipients at $40,250 was New Jersey state Sen. William Gormley, a Republican running for the seat being vacated this year by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Why Gormley? It's at least partly because he supported a controversial $330 million road and tunnel project that will benefit a planned new Mirage property in Atlantic City. Two-thirds of the tunnel money came from that state over the objections of entrepreneur Donald Trump, a rival of Mirage outgoing Chairman Steve Wynn. Another tunnel backer, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, received $16,000 from Nevada PACs before deciding to abandon a run at Lautenberg's seat.

"It doesn't take a conspiracy-minded individual to see a connection there," Jelen said. "There's a special interest to protect. I don't see anything wrong with that."

archive