Publicly funded campaign ads?

Steve Sebelius makes the case that politicians should not appear in ads promoting programs they're in charge of:

But the basic nature of what [Lt. Gov. Brian] Krolicki did is exactly the same in [Secretary of State Ross] Miller’s case: A state official appearing in state-paid TV ads, which tends to constitute free publicity for a person who needs publicity in order to get re-elected someday. And, in both cases, it’s unseemly.

The point is valid. Just as we don't want state officials to use their office staffers to field election campaign questions, state funds shouldn't be used in ads that help their re-election campaigns.

Promoting state programs or initiatives is worthwhile and should be encouraged. But why do politicians need to appear in them? The simple answer is that they don't.

ACLU supports transparency in union negotiations

Late last month, Gov. Gibbons created a task force to deal with the future of Nevada's education policy. Relying on a legal opinion, the task force declared itself exempt from open meeting laws and held its first meeting behind closed doors. Newspaper editorials, the ACLU, local news outlets and this blog all disagreed with their decision. Fortunately, the task force soon reversed course and declared it will hold all future meetings in compliance with open meeting laws.

End of story, right? Not quite.

After the ACLU of Nevada challenged Gov. Gibbons for allowing the task force to meet in secret, Gibbons shot back, asking the ACLU to also support transparency in union negotiations.

Lo and behold, they do:

In response to your question, as we have noted, our position is that open government principles should extend to the collective bargaining process. While arguments can always be made as to why particular government processes should be excluded from public scrutiny, it is our view that the spirit of the Open Meeting Law and the underlying principles behind it mean that we should support openness except in very rare circumstances and that neither the business of the Task Force nor the process of collective bargaining merit secrecy. (Emphasis mine)

We applaud the ACLU of Nevada for supporting union negotiation transparency and Gov. Gibbons for making it an issue. Anytime a union contract includes a provision forbidding it from being put online, something has gone seriously wrong.

You can read their letter here.

(Thanks Jon Ralston)

Ethics complaints galore

Welcome to election season everybody!

First we have the Democrats going after GOP candidates Danny Tarkanian and Mike Montandon:

The Nevada State Democratic Party has filed a complaint the with Federal Election Commission alleging that the Tarkanian for Senate campaign coordinated the use of “soft” money to illegally attack Sen. Harry Reid, a federal candidate. Congress has passed strict laws against the use of “soft” money in federal elections. ...

The complaint alleges that Mike Montandon for Governor used soft money to pay for an illegal ad attacking Sen. Harry Reid to the benefit of and in coordination with the Tarkanian for Senate campaign. The complaint specifically names consultant Steve Wark in his current capacity as a simultaneous advisor to both campaigns.

(Link)

Not to be outdone, the Republicans are going after the Democratic Secretary of State and State Treasurer:

The state Republican party has confirmed it will be filing an ethics complaint against Secretary of State Ross Miller and state Treasurer Kate Marshall alleging the improper use of publicly funded web pages, phone lines and state employees for their respective reelection campaigns. ...

[Republican Party spokeswoman Ciara] Turns said the evidence collected includes screen shots of web pages that have since been revised and records of phone conversations with public employees who fielded campaign-related questions and directed callers to where they could make campaign donations for both Miller and Marshall.

(Link)

We'll be keeping an eye on how both of these complaints turn out.

A union or a racket?

I'm sure this will get the public back on the firefighters' side:

Clark County administrators requested that a Metro Police officer be posted at Tuesday’s County Commission meeting, saying they sought additional security after a commissioner reported receiving threatening phone calls related to his criticism of firefighters' compensation.

Let's hope Commissioner Sisolak will not be intimidated. All these threats do is turn public opinion more against the firefighters at a time when they need all the goodwill they can get.

Of course if they just agreed to bring their salaries more in line with the national average and stop abusing the overtime system, that'd generate a lot of goodwill too.

Not looking good, John

Jon Ralston, with the latest:

In the federal penal code, it is known as "structuring."

And it is a word Sen. John Ensign should remember because it is very likely to be on any indictment with his name on it. …

Structuring is a broad term that refers to the crime of creating financial transactions to evade reporting requirements — for example, a $96,000 payment to your mistress laundered through a trust controlled by your parents and calling it a "gift" instead of what it obviously was: a severance payment that had to be reported.

Between this potential "structuring" charge, his role in trying to get Doug Hampton a lobbying job and allegedly getting below-market room rental rates, Sen. Ensign just can't seem to catch a break. Then again, that happens when you have John Ensign's moral character.

For a man once entertaining thoughts of the Presidency, this whole saga has been a long and brutal fall from grace. Unfortunately, I don't think he truly understands it yet.