Transparency extends beyond politics

When most people think of "transparency", they tend to think of stuff like campaign donations, voting records and open-meeting laws. Over the years, "transparency" has become synonymous with "political transparency."

That makes the Las Vegas Sun's investigative series on the valley's hospitals all the more interesting. It takes what is most often seen in political transparency reporting -- examining a large number of records and creating a compelling narrative out of it -- and applies it to health care and hospitals in Las Vegas. The result is both fascinating in what it uncovers and disheartening for the mistakes they find.

Quoting passages here from their report wouldn't do it justice. You should really see for yourself what they have put together.

It is stories like these that should remind everybody of the important role newspapers play in a community.

Here is the link again: Do No Harm: Hospital Care in Las Vegas

Transparency as a weapon

If you're looking for a great take on the recently House-approved DISCLOSE Act, check out Thomas Mitchell's piece:

On Thursday, the House passed the misnomer-labeled DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act) as an end-run on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which shredded major portions, though not enough, of the McCain-Feingold gag-nonincumbents-act. The roll call shows Nevada’s Democratic reps Berkley and Titus voted for it, while Republican Heller exercised common sense.

The act requires all kinds of disclosures and on-camera endorsements of anyone who dares to speak up about political issues and candidates, while granting carefully crafted exemptions for a favored few groups such as the unions, the Sierra Club and the NRA.

He goes on to say that "[s]uch laws have nothing to do with free flow of information for the sake of the electorate and everything to do with laying down costly speed bumps for those who would challenge the orthodoxy of the establishment."

While it's good to have transparency in campaign donations for candidates, we shouldn't stifle free speech in the pursuit of that goal.

To further borrow from Mitchell's post, here is a video of Eugene Scalia elegantly speaking on the subject:


Transparency that informs and educates the public should be encouraged and facilitated. Transparency used as a weapon to stifle unwelcome speech should not be.

Taxpayer money spent on ballot questions?

This should certainly raise some eyebrows:

Public resources are being used to advocate one controversial ballot initiative and block another, drawing criticism about tax dollars entering politicized battles.

Gov. Jim Gibbons’ administration has drafted the Gibbons Open Government Initiative and will continue working to qualify it for the ballot. It would require local governments and unions to negotiate contracts in public, long a goal of conservatives who say public employee pay is too high.

The law is clear: "a public officer or employee shall not request or otherwise cause a governmental entity to incur an expense or make an expenditure to support or oppose ... [a] ballot question."

Governor Gibbons has said he is advocating for the ballot measure as a private citizen, which is fine. However, his Deputy Chief of Staff Stacy Woodbury contradicts that by noting in the Sun article that staff time has been used to work on the ballot question and write up instructions for signature gatherers. Assuming those staffers were paid, how does this not run into conflict with the law? Their wages are clearly "an expense," right?

Ms. Woodbury can claim creating a ballot measure is no different than drafting a bill for the Legislature, but she is mistaken. State law explicitly forbids public employees from incurring expenses while supporting or opposing ballot questions but says nothing about drafting bills.

Breaking ethics rules in order to pass a ballot measure strengthening transparency rules is unacceptable, no matter how worthwhile it is.

The Good and The Bad

At TransparentNevada we believe that good behavior deserves to be recognized. For that reason, we wanted to take a moment and thank all the jurisdictions around the state that complied with our records requests in a timely manner.

First up is the Washoe County School District, which really seems to understand the need for open government. Emphasis mine:

Washoe County school officials agreed and said that they were willing to provide the information.

"We gave them the same things as we gave the Reno Gazette-Journal," district spokesman Steve Mulvenon said in reference to newspaper's recent look at public employee salaries.

Mulvenon said Superintendent Heath Morrison notified employees in a newsletter that the request was routine and a matter of public record.

"In fact, when we were done, his question was why wasn't all this on our website anyway," he said.

"I think there is a strong likelihood this will happen," Mulvenon said. "The bottom line is that these are the taxpayers dollars, and they deserve to know were they are being spent and how they are being spent."

Additionally, the counties of Douglas, Humboldt and Clark, the cities of Las Vegas and Henderson and the LVCVA were all very helpful and timely in their responses to our requests.

On the other hand, the counties of Storey, Pershing, Lincoln and Mineral never provided us with the information we requested. Nye County insisted we pay up to $3,000 to obtain their payroll information.

It is dispiriting that some jurisdictions think they are not bound by the law and continue to stonewall our efforts.

But nevertheless thank you to those groups that were helpful and we will continue to apply pressure to the groups that weren't. It will take time, but the idea of open government will win.

DISCLOSE Act shenanigans

Continuing our discussion of the atrocious exemptions in the DISCLOSE Act, the RJ nailed it in yesterday's editorial.

As I've said, we need a system where both free speech and transparency peacefully co-exist. Private groups should be able present their message without government interference and citizens should be able to know who is backing candidates through comprehensive disclosure rules.

The DISCLOSE Act, as it currently stands, undermines both free speech and the principles of transparency. It unduly stifles free speech through onerous requirements while carving out exemptions for powerful interest groups. As a result, groups on the left, like the ACLU, and the right, such as the Chamber of Commerce, currently oppose the DISCLOSE Act.

If Congress really wants more transparent elections, they should focus on strengthening disclosure rules for politicians instead of trampling the free speech rights of private citizens. Allow citizens to speak and donate freely but just mandate full disclosure on the politician's part. This way, citizens can enjoy their First Amendment rights while elections remain transparent.

They've somehow made it worse

When you have to justify these kind of exemptions, you should rethink your entire plan:

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation. ...

The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

This is a clear case of the government -- as my colleague Victor says -- "picking winners and losers." Large and powerful organizations will only grow more powerful as smaller organizations are hounded by new regulations. Either apply the rules to all groups or don't have the rules. Passing a law with a special exemption for a politically powerful group satisfies no one and makes a mockery of the idea.

Also note how the Democrats say the law would "apply to only the NRA." I believe they might be mistaken. What about the AARP? Wouldn't this exemption apply to them too?

Looking forward, what will Congress do in the next two, four or eight years? Will they annually update the law to exempt new organizations they feel deserve to be shielded?

While campaign disclosure laws are important, they should never be used as cover for attacking free speech rights.

Hopefully Congress can create sensible, constitutionally-sound campaign disclosure laws in the future that respect and encourage free speech while also allowing the public to stay informed.

Given their track record, I'm not optimistic.

Who Bankrolls Harry Reid?

The Center for Public Integrity has a fascinating look at Harry Reid's top campaign donors:

In Nevada’s rough-and-tumble politics, Reid’s top backers include a heavy dose of the Nevada business community, especially in the casino and land development areas, and the telecommunications industry. Those business interests are balanced by sizeable support from organized labor and trial lawyers. ...

All told, Reid has raised more than $42 million over nearly three decades, including more than $6.5 million for the federal version of his leadership PAC, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. Representing a swing state like Nevada — in four of the last five presidential elections the state has been won by a margin of less than four points — Reid has needed almost every penny. The former middleweight boxer is currently in the political fight of his life, trailing in virtually every public poll when matched up against his likely November opponents. (Emphasis mine)

His top PAC donors over the years include AT&T, Laborers' International, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Bankers Association, MGM Mirage and others. An interesting mix of business and labor groups, but that's unsurprising given that he leads the Senate and the federal government has enormous power and continues to take more of it.

Make sure to read their full report.

Primary Day is today

Here are some links that I think you'll find useful for today's primary election.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal has published an extensive voter guide to help you learn more about the candidates in each race.

A list of all the candidates -- including their campaign websites -- can be found here.

Find your polling location by going to the Secretary of State's VoterSearch website and entering your personal information. Polls are open from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. today only.

Follow the latest primary news on Twitter. Make sure to check out Jon Ralston, Elizabeth Crum, Ross Miller, Steve Sebelius and Jonathan Humbert.

Once the polls close, head to SilverState2010 for official election results.

Good luck to all the candidates!

Judge rules that Transparency trumps Free Speech

Ruling that "[s]ome limited restrictions on free speech may constitutionally be imposed to protect the proper and effective exercise of First Amendment rights," District Judge James Wilson Jr. has issued a preliminary injunction barring the Alliance for America's Future from running ads on behalf of Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval.

Judge Wilson Jr. ruled that only when voters know, among other things, "... the sources of a candidate's support," can they make fully informed judgments. When this information is not disclosed, Judge Wilson Jr. argued, the marketplace of ideas becomes crippled.

He acknowledges that while disclosure requirements "may at times inhibit" free speech, such disclosure requirements are "indispensable" for the proper exercise of First Amendment rights by the voting public.

Both free speech and transparency are essential in politics. As Wilson himself acknowledges, "[t]he First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office."

The question boils down to which matters more: the voting public's right to know who is spending money on behalf of a candidate or a group's right to speak freely on behalf of whomever them choose.

I personally think that neither of these concepts should "lose" out to the other and a compromise can be found between these competing ideas by embracing both unrestricted freedom of speech and robust transparency requirements.

An unaffiliated group should be able to expressly advocate on behalf of a candidate, including using "magic words" (e.g., "vote for," "elect," "support," etc.) that are currently banned in these types of ads.

But while outside groups' freedom of speech should be protected, they should be subject to stringent transparency requirements. Campaign disclosure rules have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional, most recently in the Citizens United ruling.

You can read Judge Wilson Jr.'s ruling here.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

First Sue Lowden gets in hot water over a bus. Now Sharron Angle is in hot water over a plane. I hope Danny Tarkanian doesn't like trains.

The RJ has the story:

When Sharron Angle hitched a ride on a supporter's plane to rally Tea Party troops at the "Showdown in Searchlight" in Harry Reid's hometown, the rising Republican candidate hoping to replace the U.S. senator might have violated campaign finance rules.

Angle paid $67.54 to reimburse the owner and pilot for fuel and parking for several legs of the trip that she and a couple shared on the six-seat, single-engine Cherokee Piper on March 27 and 28, according to records her campaign released to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Passengers picking up equal shares of the transport tab is in line with Federal Aviation Administration rules.

But after questions were raised about whether Angle as a candidate should have paid a charter rate estimated at $7,000 or more, her campaign said Friday it sought a legal opinion and decided to pay a higher charter plane fare to ensure full compliance with the Federal Election Commission.

This really does appear to be an honest mistake. Her being in compliance with the FAA seems to have put her in conflict with the FEC. One would think those agencies would coordinate better to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen, but that would be asking a lot of Washington.

To her credit, the Angle campaign was proactive on the issue and did not wait for it to blow up before addressing it.

Obama, Sestak and "committing politics"

And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low?

When the White House enlisted former President Bill Clinton to see if Representative Joe Sestak would accept a presidential appointment to drop out of a Senate race, there is no question it was committing politics. But was it committing a crime?

The dispute surrounding the White House effort to nudge Mr. Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary has once again cast a harsh light on the murky boundaries that govern American political life. When does ordinary horse trading cross a line? When does behavior that may violate sensibilities actually violate federal law?

This is one of those cases where supporters of the President will likely see nothing wrong and opponents of the President see it as one more instance of a supremely opaque administration.

Amazingly, we still don't know exactly what position the White House offered Sestak. He still has not given a full-throated denial that the position was Secretary of the Navy, although the White House has also denied that it offered Sestak a position on the Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board.

Sadly, this kind of "politics as usual" is all too common in modern American politics. As the report notes, former Presidents Bush, Clinton and Reagan all engaged in some form of this behavior.

But it doesn't matter what previous Presidents did, because Obama promised to usher in a "new kind of politics" and do away with these types of deals. And yet, here is President Obama, knee deep in "politics as usual." And the Sestak offer may not be the only one — a similar story is bubbling up in Colorado.

Will this result in criminal or ethics charges? Unlikely. Will it hurt Obama's political standing? It already has.

Land of the Superlobbyist

The unholy alliance between businesses, lobbyists and politicians continues:

For more than a decade, Brian L. Wolff was the quintessential Washington insider, serving as one of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's closest aides as she rose through the House and helping to raise millions as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But the fundraising didn't stop once he left the DCCC. As a top lobbyist at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major power companies in the climate debate, Wolff has bundled together more than $600,000 in contributions for the DCCC within the past year -- and he hopes to raise $2 million more for the committee by November.

The issue here is not lobbyists, plenty of whom represent honorable causes and have every right to petition politicians. It is when they become involved in the Washington money game that it crosses a line that the average citizen donating a portion of their paycheck never meets.

Put simply, a politician is going to be especially receptive to a lobbyist who donates a large amount of money to their campaign. While the average citizen might meet with a mid-level staffer to discuss an issue, a lobbyist who donates half a million to the campaign has a much better chance of a face-to-face meeting with the politician.

While the politician might not be wholly "in the pocket" of the lobbyist, they will certainly consider the lobbyist's requests in order to secure their share of the money when the next campaign rolls around.

So how do we fix this system? A public financing system is not the answer. Nobody should be forced to support a candidate they don't agree with. Furthermore, any attempt to limit the ability of lobbyists to bundle money would likely be struck down as an abridgment of free speech.

The only real solution is to strengthen transparency and reporting requirements and hold the politicians accountable. Allow them to take the bundled money and let the voters decide if they are representing the interests of the lobbyists or their constituents.

Money is important, but voter support is the true lifeblood for any politician.

Making it up as they go

I'm glad to see the Family Court system is staffed by the best and brightest:

Family Court officials apparently have been making up the law for the past six months by implementing a policy to seal temporary protection order documents, contrary to state laws that ensure those records remain open and available to the public.

When a reporter went to the Family Court records window and asked for a copy of the temporary protection order application filed by the captain's wife, a clerk explained that all such records were sealed. ...

"It appears somebody decided to preempt the Supreme Court with some administrative policy," said Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association. "They don't have the authority to decide something like that." (Emphasis mine)

The confusion arose after a court administrator incorrectly thought a federal law banning the electronic publication of "certain protection order documents" applied to documents in all mediums.

An innocent mistake, but a mistake all the same. More worryingly, had the RJ not uncovered it, the policy would likely still be in effect.