53°F
weather icon Clear

Will Assembly serve the elite or the masses?

It’s not exactly news that the opinion of the masses doesn’t always carry weight at the Legislature against the whims and wishes of Nevada’s monied elite.

Nor is Nevada’s status as a state under increasing corporate control a shock to anyone who has been paying attention.

But there are times when an action on behalf of the few is so audacious that it cuts through the general malaise of the jaded citizenry. The legislative push on behalf of Wynn Resorts’ Senate Bill 444, which effectively guts Nevada’s anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation law, constitutes one of those times.

The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month played maitre d’ for the bill offered on behalf of casino mogul Steve Wynn, whose efforts to sue stock analyst James Chanos over negative comments regarding the health of the Macau gaming market were thoroughly rebuffed by a California court. Trouble is, since 2013 Nevada has had a strong anti-SLAPP law on the books, which is meant to deter lawsuits filed to punish and silence critical commentary and investigative journalism.

Had state Senate leaders been doing the work of the people instead of basking in Gaming Inc.’s glow and counting Wynn Resorts contributions, they would have tossed this malodorous legislation before it stunk up the joint. Instead, the skunk strolled out of the state Senate by unanimous vote.

So much for all that talk of discord between warring political parties. Just place a bill favored by one of Nevada’s political mega-donors, and the choir sings in unison.

Now it’s the Assembly’s turn to be the grown-ups in Carson City.

Will its members seize the opportunity?

They needn’t look far to find the opinion of the people. It’s right there on the state’s official legislative website. A sample of the voluminous and almost unanimous criticism of SB444:

■ “Anti-SLAPP statutes are a good form of tort reform. They kill off frivolous claims that would otherwise chill free speech. They are a pretty amazing species of law, because they are pro-consumer and pro-business.”

■ “Anti-SLAPP laws are very useful for protecting free speech, and should not be destroyed because someone wealthy and powerful lost a lawsuit and wants to keep it from happening again. America was founded for ALL people, not just those who happen to have the money and power to lobby for change.”

■ “Free speech should not be allowed to be suppressed by the wealthy!”

■ “If anything, anti-SLAPP laws should be stronger, not weaker. The ability to financially ruin someone stating an opinion should be as difficult as possible.”

■ “The changes proposed for the anti-SLAPP statute would eviscerate the protections it provides. This is not a matter of protecting defamatory speech; it is a protection for those who speak their minds in a truthful manner, and who face lawsuits that are filed purely for the purpose of silencing their speech.”

■ “I oppose this bill because it will reduce the protections for speech that the anti-SLAPP law passed in 2013 provided all of us Nevadans. I write a hobbyist blog, and on it, I often express my opinion about the products of major companies that make products for the hobby. With this bill and its language restricting protection to only speech about issues that are ‘concerns not only the speaker and the speaker’s audience, but the general public.’ That means, under the bill, if I say truthful things about a product I receive on my blog, that company can sue me and be confident that I won’t have the benefit of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP, since it would only be an issue that concerns me and the kind of people that would be interested in my blog, and not the general public. That’s not good for me, for free expression, or for Nevada.”

■ “This bill substantially weakens the anti-SLAPP protections that were established to protect individuals who voice their opinions. Consumers need and want such protections in order that they not be subjected to frivolous litigation by individuals and companies who have more money than them and seek to shut them up via expensive litigation.”

Opposition to SB444 nearly pitched a shutout. But it’s a safe bet none of those people cast votes in the Assembly, which has a chance to do the right thing on behalf of almost all Nevadans.

We will soon see if the opinion of many outweighs the monied opinion of Wynn and Silver State’s few but favored super elite.

Have an item for the Bard of the Boulevard? Email comments and contributions to Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0295. Follow him on Twitter: @jlnevadasmith

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
Uber-backed proposal would cap attorney fees at 20%

An initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State’s office Monday aims to ensure plaintiffs receive “their fair share” of awards or settlements in civil cases by capping attorneys’ fees at 20 percent.