Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Supreme Court justices raised more than $1.5 million

Gaming companies, large law firms top list of donors

Nevada's Supreme Court justices raised more than $1.5 million to get elected, mostly from gaming companies and large law firms that appear before the high court, according to a new report from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

The report, titled "The Supreme Jackpot," was released Tuesday and shows a system that is "unfair to those who go before the court and also to the justices themselves," said Paul Brown, PLAN's executive director and lead researcher on the report.

"It gives the impression that the judges aren't unbiased, and that's not fair to the judges," he said.

The report, the latest in the Jackpot series examining money's influence in politics, shows the average amount raised in a winning bid for the court in 1998 was $172,197, a figure that rose to $313,845 in 2002.

Gaming companies pack the list of major donors to the court, taking the top five places. But the rest of the top 10 are all law firms or attorneys who appeared in some capacity before the court since January 2000. Half of the top 50 donors appeared before the court, according to the report.

"It's a game with very unfortunate rules," said Jim Hulse, chairman of Common Cause Nevada, which paid to print the report.

Those at the top of the list of donors and the justices say although the system isn't perfect, it's one that must be used.

"As long as judges and justices must stand for election, it will be necessary for them to collect campaign contributions and conduct campaigns, just like any other citizen running for public office," Chief Justice Miriam Shearing said.

Shearing said though judicial election reform has been a hot topic nationally, Nevada lawmakers have been slow to aid in the effort. In 2003, the Supreme Court introduced a bill to minimize the collection of contributions by establishing a separate filing period for judicial candidates. Judges also would have been precluded from collecting contributions until a challenger filed against them.

"The legislation was based on the reality that most judges are unchallenged when running for re-election, yet must collect campaign funds to be prepared should someone file against them," Shearing said.

The bill failed to pass.

PLAN's study shows Justice Mark Gibbons collected $278,330 for his 2002 election. He ran uncontested.

The report proposes remedying the influence of money by creating a public financing system for Supreme Court races. Money for the elections would come from a $50 voluntary contribution from attorneys when they renew their license annually and from increased assessment fees on civil and criminal lawsuits. PLAN is also recommending a prohibition on corporations giving money through various subsidiaries.

As an example, Mandalay Resort Group , which topped the campaign donor list with $126,500 since 1998, gave money from a variety of its individual properties. State law caps individual donations at $5,000 per election, but a company can give more if its subsidiaries and individual executives donate.

Mike Sloan, vice president and general counsel for Mandalay Resort Group, said he didn't believe any conflict existed with the current Supreme Court given his company's various donations.

"You support people because you think they're going to do a good job," Sloan said. "We were as generous to Justice Maupin as anyone else, and he's the one who ruled in dissent on the governor vs. the Legislature."

Sloan's companies had a business tax proposal at the heart of a dispute during last year's legislative sessions. The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to set aside the provision in the state constitution requiring two-thirds of the Legislature to approve a tax increase.