Campaign finance disclosure is really popular

Very few things are supported by 92 percent of the public these days, but requiring campaigns to disclose their finances is:

Americans are even more supportive of full disclosure by campaigns with 92 percent saying it is important for campaigns to be required by law to disclose how much money they have raised, where the money came from and how it was used. There was little difference in the opinions of each party’s voters on this question. (Emphasis added)

In addition, 8 in 10 say it's important to limit the amount of money campaigns can spend while 7 in 10 say the same thing for outside groups not connected to campaigns.

While these numbers seem lopsided, I would caution against reading too much into them.

In the abstract, transparency is always extremely popular and has no real opposition. Being against transparency would be as unpopular as being against democracy.

Also, any law that limits the amount campaigns or outside groups can spend would be easily ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Precedent states that money equals speech, therefore any law that restricts money (i.e., speech) has to show that it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. A law limiting overall campaign spending would not survive that challenge.

Finally, this poll was taken right as the campaign season enters its final stretch. I suspect many people who say they support limits on campaign spending are really just expressing their distaste at the deluge of ads they've watched and heard. I'd be interested to see how these numbers compare to earlier this year, before so many ads were on the air.

2010 campaign rated 'Barely True'

PolitiFact renders the verdict:

After rating hundreds of claims in the 2010 election -- from TV ads, debates, interviews and mailings -- we're giving an overall Truth-O-Meter rating to the campaign.

We rate it Barely True.

In a majority of claims checked this fall by PolitiFact and our eight state partners, we found a grain of truth, but it was exaggerated, twisted or distorted. (We define Barely True as a statement containing some element of truth, but it "ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.")

This makes sense to me.

While lying might get a candidate into legal trouble, creating an ad based on a skewed version of the truth is often considered "politics as usual." Even if the press or their opponent is able to explain why an ad is false or twisted, the damage has been done. Campaign-wise, it doesn't really matter if an ad gets a 'C-' from the local newspaper if it has already earned you a few thousand votes or dollars in campaign donations.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way our campaign system works.

Also, here are the PolitiFact profiles for Harry Reid and Sharron Angle.

Horsford, Arberry hit with ethics complaints

Jon Ralston has the scoop on separate ethics complaints that have been filed against state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford and former Assemblyman Morse Arberry.

The Horsford complaint is regarding the fundraising letter Horsford sent out a few months ago that critics argued essentially set up a "pay to play" operation for access in Carson City. After public scrutiny, Horsford withdrew the offer. The Arberry complaint alleges the former Assemblyman had a conflict of interest when he was seeking a lobbying job with the Las Vegas District Courts while still serving in the Nevada Assembly.

Both complaints appear to have merit and neither man comes out looking great.

We'll let you know how it turns out.

Campaign Finance Disclosure 101

Do you want to learn more about campaign finance disclosure but aren't sure where to start? Well, you're in luck. Slate has published a fascinating primer on the issue and I highly encourage you to take a look.

It includes a history of campaign finance laws, the challenges they've faced and how outside groups are finding ways around the laws this year.

Take a look.

Reminder: Check out our transparency survey

With early voting underway and Election Day fast approaching, I thought it would be a good idea to remind everybody to check out TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.

The survey has responses from over 60 candidates who shared their opinions on a range of transparency issues. Issues included online checkbooks, expanding open meeting laws for public unions negotiations and the Legislature, requiring 72 hours for the public to review bills before they're voted on and opening up campaign finance reports.

To see how the candidates responded head on over to TransparentNevada's 2010 transparency survey.

Two cheers for Ross Miller

From the RJ:

Democrat Secretary of State Ross Miller announced his plans Wednesday for new laws that would make campaign contribution information more accessible to citizens and protect the state against voter registration fraud.

Miller wants the Legislature next year to require all candidates to file contribution reports electronically, create a searchable database to easily find out who makes contributions and increase the number of times candidates must file contribution reports. He also would require candidates to report contributions of $1,000 or more within four days of elections.

This follows his campaign's decision to release its contribution and expense reports two weeks before the deadline and before the start of early voting.

Miller, however, doesn't have a spotless record on this issue. Despite these actions to increase transparency, he never responded to TransparentNevada's survey.

But still, it's a step in the right direction.

Laughlin, Pahrump make list of overpaid public employees

The Red Tape blog over at MSNBC has a great piece up today digging into some outrageous examples of government employees making out like bandits on the taxpayer's dime.

Nevada makes the list twice with Laughlin (#5) and Pahrump (#10):

Laughlin is a tiny Nevada border gambling town, a little Las Vegas for Northern Arizona residents. Not including tourists, the city had a population of 7,000 during the last Census. Last year its top 10 employees pulled in nearly $3 million in pay, making it a perfect example of another bane of taxpayers– overtime pay.

As KLAS-TV in Nevada noted in a recent story about excessive overtime pay, "One might expect the town of Laughlin to be a blazing inferno." One Laughlin firefighter alone earned $92,000 in overtime pay last year.

Laughlin is in Clark County, which also includes Las Vegas. Other firefighters from around the county are also well compensated. The two top earners, who collected $474,000 and $444,000, were firefighters who won large disability payments, according to KLAS.

The nearby city of Henderson, also in Clark County, generates some heavy paystubs, too. The assistant city attorney earned $550,000, including $433,000 in a one-time payout; the city attorney earned $435,000, $350,000 of it in a one-time payout, and a fire battalion chief earned $400,000, almost all from a one-time payout. Not to be outdone, North Las Vegas’ assistant fire chief earned $661,000.

Some of that salary information came from this very website, TransparentNevada, and it's great to see the issue of overpaid government employees getting some national press.

Do make sure to read the whole thing.