Attack ad targeting Kihuen combines two separate votes into single attack line

An outside spending group’s attack ad targeting Democratic congressional candidate Ruben Kihuen makes statements about his record as a state senator that combine two separate votes cast two years apart into a single attack line.

The 34-second television spot, released Tuesday by the National Republican Congressional Committee, says partly that Kihuen “bragged about passing the largest tax hike in Nevada history, yet voted to allow a pay raise for himself.”

It’s an attack line that will be played across television screens repeatedly in the 4th Congressional District, where Kihuen is bidding to unseat U.S. Rep. Cresent Hardy, R-Nev., who is running for a second two-year term.

The committee is putting about $500,000 behind the ad buy, with more to come.

Here’s a look at both legislative votes, with context about what the measures involved:

In the 2013 session, Kihuen was one of five primary sponsors on record of state Senate Joint Resolution 8. The legislation aimed to change the Nevada Legislature’s schedule so lawmakers would meet in session each year.

Nevada is one of just four states that has a regular legislative session once every two years instead of every year, not counting special sessions. State lawmakers now have a 120-day session every two years. They are paid $146.29 for each day of the session, but only for the first 60 days. That amounts to $8,777.40 for each session.

Under the 2013 proposal, which Kihuen voted for in the state Senate, lawmakers would have met for 90 days in odd-numbered years and 30 days in even-numbered years. The per-day pay rate would have stayed the same, but legislators would have been paid for all 120 days they are in session each two-year cycle, potentially doubling their salary. The Senate and Assembly passed the measure in 2013, largely along party-line votes.

Given the bill’s intent to replace an outdated system, Kihuen’s campaign said in a statement the ad’s claim he voted to increase pay is “disingenuous.”

But Kihuen and the committee didn’t mention that the measure would have needed to pass the Legislature again in 2015. That didn’t happen after the Republicans gained majority control of both chambers.

Even if the Legislature had passed it in 2015, it wouldn’t have been a done deal. The measure would have been sent to Nevada voters, not state lawmakers, for a final say in the next election.

The vote on the “largest tax hike in Nevada history,” as the ad calls it, came in the 2015 session. Kihuen did vote, and support, a $1.3 billion package of new and extended taxes, which is widely viewed as the largest in state history.

The Republican committee’s ad doesn’t say that Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval championed the tax package as a way to increase funding for public education.

Nevada’s Legislature had a Republican majority in the Senate and Assembly in 2015, and GOP legislative leaders came to Sandoval’s aid to push it through. Although the proposal had opponents in the Legislature, it passed with support from GOP and Democratic lawmakers.

Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2904. Find @BenBotkin1 on Twitter.