Monday, February 10, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Campaigns leave judges cash heavy

Some keep money for future elections; one who ran unopposed returned gifts

At the end of their cash-flush campaigns, District Judge Jackie Glass won the rights to sing "Hey, Big Spender" while fellow judge Michael Cherry was delivering his rendition of "Save It for a Rainy Day."

Glass topped the spending list among all 2002 judicial candidates in Southern Nevada in her hard-fought election. Flooding TV airwaves, she spent $409,176 to defeat incumbent Jeff Sobel, who spent $283,233.

Cherry, who had no opponent, raised $171,012 but squirrelled away $139,635 for another race.

While their numbers sound large, they are not record-breakers.

No Nevada judicial candidate has surpassed the 1992 election of Nevada Supreme Court Justice Miriam Shearing, who spent $759,000, including $594,000 of her own money.

Included in Glass' war chest was $156,000 of her own money. She remains $92,000 out-of-pocket, but as a sitting judge she can recoup her loan by holding postelection fund-raisers.

With her ubiquitous TV ads, she credits her victory to a combination of hard work, grass-roots campaigning and direct mail.

Glass spent more on her race than Nevada Supreme Court Judge Bill Maupin did on his statewide race, according to the campaign finance reports filed Jan. 15.

The reports cover the period from Oct. 25 to Jan. 3.

Maupin put $324,023 into defeating former District Judge Don Chairez for the job, which pays $140,000.

A Review-Journal survey of the judicial campaign contribution and expense reports showed that District Judge Michelle Leavitt pays her mother as a "staffer," that many judges use their excess money to write checks to charities and that only one judge, John McGroarty, returned donations when no one filed against him.

On May 20, the last day of filing, 16 judges learned they drew no opponents and were automatic winners. That still did not stop them from raising and spending large sums.

Such was the case with Cherry, who like all candidates can use any cash that is still on hand for a future campaign. Or a candidate can donate sums to charities or political parties. Candidates are permitted to use excess contributions for the expenses related to their office, such as tickets to charity fund-raising dinners.

Cherry said that he is keeping his options open and that he may consider running for Supreme Court in 2004 or 2006. He has written checks to charities, including $3,000 to his temple and $4,000 to organizations helping children.

Cherry said his fund-raising letter was sent in January, and checks still flowed into the campaign even when he stopped raising money. Because he is likely to run again, he used the checks to bolster the future war chest.

McGroarty, after covering his expenses, returned 55 percent of the money he had raised. He returned contributions six years ago when he drew no opposition.

"I don't think it's right to keep it," McGroarty said. "I returned the money because I feel the people who gave me the money should be able to direct it to the candidate of their own choice, instead of having me redirect it.

"I got a cute letter from one attorney saying: I can't believe you're returning money," McGroarty said.

Among the judges who drew challengers, District Judge Stewart Bell turned out to be the thriftiest. He sought no contributions, and his campaign was limited to outdoor signs.

"All the money ($38,559) came in unsolicited," said Bell, a two-term district attorney. "They basically said I had done a good job as DA. ... We ran on our laurels."

Bell thinks the system for judges should be changed. "It's a flaw in the system that allows you to collect when you are unopposed."

He proposes limiting the filing period for judicial candidates to two weeks in January.

"Judges shouldn't collect a dime before filing closes, and if they are unopposed, they can't collect anything. That way only the people with races could raise money."

Bell's other suggestion is that judges be limited to retain just $5,000 a year in surplus funds to defray the costs of buying tickets for events such as the expensive dinners for charity, which cost hundreds of dollars.

Allowing uncontested judges to collect huge war chests for their next race is legal, but Bell said it creates an uneven playing field for challengers.

For years, a plan has been discussed in which judges are appointed and run for retention. That would lessen the need for judges to ask for money, usually from the lawyers who appear before them. But the idea has not gone any further than the discussion level.

These days, a contested District Court race has a price tag of at least $150,000. Some adopt Cherry's philosophy of raising money early; others take a wait-and-see approach.

Chief District Judge Gene Porter pulled a challenger on the last day of filing, Las Vegas attorney David Phillips.

Phillips barely campaigned, but Porter said he could not predict that, and he mounted a campaign that raised $174,215 to pay for signs, television and other advertising throughout Clark County.

"I didn't do one fund-raiser until I got an opponent," said Porter, a former assemblyman.

Though he did not pour his own money into the race, Porter said he understands why other candidates do.

"They work so hard for so long on the campaign trail that when it comes down to the final weeks, you've got so much of yourself in the race, you're willing to do whatever you think is necessary to get your message out to the public," Porter said. "And you don't want to end up in a situation where you second-guess yourself afterward about whether you should have printed another brochure or made another media buy."

Aside from Glass' $156,000 loan to her campaign, others who invested their own money included the following:

• District Judge Jessie Walsh, who invested $51,446 and repaid herself $11,000. About one-third of her expenditures were paid out of her own pocket.

• Defeated candidate Carolyn Ellsworth, who put $44,000 of her money into her race against District Judge Kathy Hardcastle.

• District Judge Valerie Adair and her opponent Ron Israel, who both injected their own money into their election. She loaned her campaign $66,175, and he loaned his $97,000.

• Unsuccessful candidate Sandy Smagac, who put $59,465 of her money into challenging David Wall for a new District Court seat. Her money kept her almost even with his $157,358 in expenditures.

• Family Court Judge Cheryl Moss, who invested $3,000 to fend off challenger Phil Beuth, who put $36,400 into his race.

• Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio, who put $59,000 of his money into his campaign.

• District Judge Jennifer Togliatti, who early on loaned her campaign $50,000 to put up signs. Togliatti, who drew no opponent, has repaid herself $30,464.

• Family Court Judge Lisa Brown, who loaned her campaign $9,300 and repaid herself all but $3,000.

• Fernando Guzman, who spent $47,000 of his own money and lost the Family Court judgeship to Jennifer Elliott, who spent about $300 sending cookie bouquets to those she defeated.

One uncontested judge used money raised for the 2002 election cycle to pay off a six-figure sum he loaned his 1996 campaign in a contested District Court race. Mark Gibbons had no opponent for his Nevada Supreme Court race, yet raised $259,713. Of that, he reported $187,000 of the money went to repay himself for the 1996 loan.

Some reports show family members getting paid.

District Judge Michelle Leavitt paid her mother, Shirley, $1,250 as a staff member and said for all the work she does, her mom is "grossly underpaid."

"It was my insistence she be paid," said Leavitt, saying her mother acts as overall coordinator and manager, handling fund raising and scheduling. She even put up yard signs.

"She saves me from having to hire a lot of people."