News

TRPA critic softens stance

Clark County Sen. John Lee said he has not dropped his support of his bill to pull Nevada out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, but he hopes a pullout will be avoided.

“Right now, the way things are going, we’re working so good together, I’m looking forward to solving any problems,” Lee said.

The TRPA is a joint California/Nevada body authorized by Congress to oversee development in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Lee, a conservative Democrat who was defeated in the Democratic primary in June, sponsored legislation opposed by most northern legislators to pull the state out of the TRPA.

He said he has met with various California officials and is “very satisfied” that an updated regional plan for the basin will be adopted in December. That might eliminate the need for a pullout, he said.

ACORN aftermath

The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld a state law that prohibits putting a bounty on voter registrations. The case dates back to the 2008 presidential election.

Under Nevada Revised Statute 293.805, it is a felony “to provide compensation for registering voters that is based upon: (a) The total number of voters a person registers; or (b) The total number of voters a person registers in a particular political party.”

In Las Vegas in 2008, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) created a voter registration program that initially paid its workers a flat wage. ACORN official Amy Busefink later approved a recommendation by organizer Christopher Edwards that the group start paying workers an additional $5 for every 21 or more voter registration applications turned in. Busefink and Edwards were apparently unaware of the ban in state law.

The bounty led to allegedly fraudulent voter registrations being turned in, though none of the workers has been convicted on that charge. But Busefink was convicted of conspiracy on an Alford plea (a guilty plea in which a defendant maintains innocence but concedes that the prosecutor has evidence that could lead to a conviction) and sentenced to 100 hours of community service and probation. Edwards pleaded guilty to a lesser, gross misdemeanor charge and drew probation.

Busefink appealed on first amendment and vagueness grounds. The court ruled that NRS 293.805 is not vague and serves a state interest— the integrity of elections—without disrupting voter registration programs, and that the encumbrance imposed on the first amendment by the law is “minimal.”

“Nevada’s interest in protecting the integrity of its election process and preventing voter registration fraud, when viewed in relation to this minimal burden, is sufficiently weighty to justify NRS 293.805’s restrictions,” wrote Justice Mark Gibbons.

Reid thriving

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, who has been relentlessly attacking Mitt Romney as out of touch with middle class people, substantially increased his wealth during the recession, according to a Washington Post/Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the finances of members of Congress.

Since 2004 Reid’s worth has risen from about $3.8 million to about $6.8 million. The rise, however, was not steady. It had ups and downs.

The study actually examined the finances of congressmembers well before the recession began. During 2004, 2005 and 2006, Reid was actually losing money. By mid-2006 he was down to about $3 million. But then his investments rebounded and by the end of 2007, when the recession began, he was up to about $4.4. Then he experienced another decline and by mid-2008 his worth was down to about where it had been in 2004. From then until 2010—the latest figures available— his wealth has risen sharply to about $6.8 million.

The Post also reported some detail about Reid’s money: “In 2004 and 2005, the Senate majority leader secured [legislation providing] $21.5 million to build a bridge over the Colorado River, linking the gambling resort town of Laughlin, Nev., with Bullhead City, Ariz. Reid owns 160 acres of undeveloped land in Bullhead City.”

—Dennis Myers

Insider debates

Small-party candidates can’t get arrested on television and radio

Debates in the presidential and Nevada U.S. Senate races in the last two weeks by have been exclusively a majorDennis Myers party affair. In the presidential debate on Oct. 3, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson—a former New Mexico governor—was excluded by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a partisan group controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties.

“A one-on-one just works better.”

Ed Pearce Television reporter

In the U.S. Senate debate on Sept. 27, Independent American Party nominee David Lory Van Der Beek was excluded by a group of media sponsors, including the Nevada public broadcasting stations that carried the debate.

“I’m sure you are well aware that this is typical treatment for thirdparty candidates in any important race,” Van Der Beek said. “If I was no threat to these mainstream politicians, why not include me?”

From municipal office to the presidency, similar things are happening. However, small party and independent candidates are often included in community debates at schools and senior citizens centers. It’s broadcast debates that the less known candidates have trouble getting into.

Contrary to what some of the minor candidates think, it’s not a decision made lightly.

“How many debate participants to include was a tough call,” according to KNPB news director Brent Boynton when he described planning for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and state legislative debates on public broadcasting stations. “I debated that issue with my colleagues at the Reno Gazette-Journal and Reno Public Radio. We all wanted to be as inclusive as possible—inclusive of ideas as well as of candidates who otherwise would get little publicity. However, we had to ask which would offer the viewer the greater benefit—more candidates or more issues? … [W]e opted for depth of issues rather than depth of field, and it made sense to treat all races the same way. It was a decision made with some misgivings, yet one we tried to make in the best interest of the voter.”

It’s a decision that has become more complicated with the proliferation of political parties. Nevada has four ballot-eligible parties—the Democratic, Republican, Independent American and Libertarian parties. Broadcasters believe debates become more unwieldy as more candidates are included.

“Does that [limiting debates to major parties] make for a better exchange?” Reno television reporter Ed Pearce said. “Yes, a one-on-one just works better than a one-on-three or one-on-four.”

Pearce was a longtime news director at both KTVN and KOLO and has

Even a group of current and former journalists— a gathering of UNR Sagebrush alumni—paid little attention to the Oct. 3 presidential debate on two large screens at Louis’s Basque Corner.

participated in a number of debates. He said that as more candidates are included, they are less likely to engage with each other, there are fewer back-and-forth exchanges—and fewer subjects discussed.

“It doesn’t make a classic debate,” he said. “It just becomes questions and answers.”

In that situation, the candidates are less likely to seek out weaknesses in each other’s positions, which is useful for voters.

It’s also true that debates make better television and radio if the number of candidates is held to two.

Pearce said he believes the multicandidate debates that have become routine in Republican and Democratic presidential primary seasons show their weaknesses. To minor party candidates it shows just the opposite—that such debates have been informative and still allowed candidates to bore in on each other.

Boynton argues, “The U.S. Senate debate last week illustrates the reason we opted for more issues. In a full hour, the candidates answered only 11 questions, and that was with only one follow-up question. If we had twice that many candidates, as we could in the [U.S. House district 2] race, we’d only explore half that many issues.”

Outsider candidates disagree. They say fewer candidates suppresses issues, it doesn’t foster them, because mainstream candidates, moderators and panelists explore mainstream issues. Only the presence in the Republican presidential campaign of Ron Paul elevated the issues of the Federal Reserve and casual warmaking, they argue.

“There will be talk but the major policies—of war, the failed economy, continuing bank bailouts with tax dollars via the Federal Reserve, and the loss of liberty through the National Defense Authorization Act—will remain the same, issues that are ignored because the twin parties apparently agree on,” said Independent American Party leader Janine Hansen of Elko County, who is a candidate for the Nevada Senate.

At the national level, the debate process is controlled by the two major parties through their Commission on Presidential Debates. It’s a private political organization, which its critics consider a classic conflict of interest.

One of its members, Newton Minow, last week argued that it is becoming more independent of the parties, because it has refused some requests from major party contenders.

“Critics have sometimes charged that the debates, and their format and substance, are controlled by the two