Miller v. Gibbons and Campaign Finance in 1994

I suppose it’s kind of nice that I didn’t have to say anything about Jim Gibbons’ recent campaign finance reporting "reforms". Lots of folks already did the heavy lifting for me. Desert Beacon wonders why Gibbons’ proposals don’t also include more limits on campaign spending. According to the LVRJ, Jim GibSON wondered about the lack of specificity in the proposals–suggesting that empty generalities seem to be a Gibbons’ trademark. And he’d be right about that.

Bob Beers said the campaign reports should be on the Internet. Of course, they already are, if you think unsearchable pdf image files count–which I don’t. Nope, they should be in a searchable data base along with extensive searchable information about PAC’s and where their funding comes from and where it goes. In other words, like the FEC site.

Dina TItus wondered why Gibbons hasn’t been so worried about campaign finance reporting in the past. And that’s a good point, too. Gibbons could have raised the issue back in the early 90′s when he was in the State Assembly or at least two years ago when he was plotting his run for the Gube-inorship. Now it’s easy for him to mew about reform because he can enjoy the secrecy in which it cloaks his current campaign. You won’t see another substantial campaign report until just before the primary, which hardly gives the MSM much time for evaluation before the election.

And it’s interesting to note in that LVRJ article that Gibbons voted against campaign finance reform for Congress in 2002 because, according to Uithoven, Gib-blossom thought it was unconstitutional. SCOTUS disagreed, but I suppose Gibbons was confused about his own job description. Apparently he thought that he was on the Supreme Court and not a member of Congress.

But I want to look back to an earlier Gube campaign, so I asked Mr. Peabody, and his pet boy Sherman, if they would take me back to 1994 in the Wayback Machine. I wanted to answer the question: How did Bob Miller beat Jim Gibbons back in 1994?

Ah, Fall 1994. O.J. was on trial. Pulp Fiction was in theaters. Bill Clinton and the Democrats were about to lose big in the Congressional campaign. John Ensign was only one of a whole bunch of Republicans who would ride Gingrich’s Contract On For America into the House of Representatives. And Jim Gibbons’ supermajority requirement for tax increases in Nevada would win the support of Nevada voters.

Democrat Bob Miller was running for Gube against Nevada Assemblyman Jim
Gibbons. Miller was an incumbent of sorts. He had been elected Lt.
Governor but Gube Richard Bryan won a seat in the Senate halfway through his
term and Miller took over. Miller was running for re-election for his second full term after replacing Richard Bryan in 1989.

How did Miller win? According to an editorial in the LVRJ (Nov. 6 1994), which, get this, endorsed Miller, Gibbons talked a good line about fiscal conservatism but he voted for "more that 100 fee and tax hikes over the years" while in the Assembly. The quoted line is, I suspect, a Miller camp talking-point about the Gibster, but what’s surprising is that the Review Journal is quoting it against a conservative Republican. My, how things change.

Miller’s best ally was the Gibbons’ campaign itself. Gibbons ran an ad showing LA rioting after the Rodney King trial. The ad concluded that "we don’t need California’s problems in Nevada" (LVSun Oct. 21, 1994). Police and government officials throughout the state took the ad as an attack on their outreach programs to minority citizens. (And you know, Gibbons used the same line at a recent Lincoln day dinner.) Most of the police organizations ended up supporting Miller, who had also been a cop and a D.A. before becoming Gube.  (LVSun Oct, 25, 1994)

Gibbons and Miller fought over who really had the NRA and the NAACP endorsements. The Gibbons campaign thought it had the NAACP endorsement, but it only had the endorsement of a few members, including William Fox who was running for, but was not the actual president of, the Nevada chapter of the organization. (RGJ Oct. 28, 1994) Some prominent Republicans, like then interim UNLV president Kenny Guinn, were also endorsing Miller. (Betcha Guinn wouldn’t last a month as UNLV prez now.)

But what really blew away the stumbling Gibbons’ campaign was the discovery that it had violated state campaign finance laws.  At the time, campaign contributions were capped at $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for corporations. Gibbons had accepted over $100,000 from sources who contributed in excess of the caps. (RGJ Oct. 26 1994). Then-Gibbons’ campaign manager and nephew Jeff Dawson himself contributed $20k to the campaign. Then-Secretary of State Cheryl Lau, who had just lost a feisty primary campaign with the G-man, wanted to prosecute, but Frankie Sue del Papa, a.k.a. "Lips", who was State Attorney General at the time, was satisfied by the campaign returning all the money. (LVRJ Oct. 26 1994 in an article by somebody named Jane Ann Morrison.)

Strangely, it seems that the Gibbons’ campaign wasn’t trying to pull a fast one and wasn’t acting maliciously. They were just stupid and failed find out what the law really said. The campaign tried to claim the the Secretary of State had misled them about the contributions, but the SOS denied the charge.

As a result, the Gibbons’ campaign had to pull T.V. ads and stop polling one week before the election. Gibbons was always behind Miller in the polls, but the lack of funds put the nails in the coffin (LVSun Nov 2 1994). In his pre-post-mortem of Gibbons’ inevitable loss, Jon Ralston wrote:

But that sure didn’t look or sound like a
funeral in his cramped office near the Meadows Mall on Wednesday. There
was Gibbons sans sports coat with his wife, Dawn, cheerful as ever,
drawing loud applause from the 30 or so partisans who crammed in behind
the media to hear that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated.

Many observers, including Gov. Bob Miller, who has made the point on
TV, have accused Gibbons of reinventing himself from an undistinguished
legislator to a gubernatorial candidate. But, as Wednesday’s event
reminded me, whether he is Frankenstein or Superman, nobody has been
better on the stump than Gibbons this year. Call him a Carson City
cipher if you will, but this guy is a singular campaign dynamo.

"I’m not going to roll over and play dead," Gibbons said in his animated way, exuding confidence as the faithful roared.

Gibbons also showed he has retained a quality that few candidates can
find in the final days: a sense of humor, and a self-deprecating one at
that. His tongue in his cheek, Gibbons said he almost tried to sell the
media on the story that he had pulled his spots "because people are
sick of negative campaigning."

And, correcting a damaging
impression left by his campaign when the revelations about the
contributions were made last week, Gibbons repeatedly referred to his
"errors" and "mistakes."

  A sense of humor and humility too. This guy can do all characters. (LVRJ Nov. 3 1994)

What Ralston may have overlooked in his eulogy of the G-man is that despite Gibbons’ enthusiasm and will to win, Gibbons seems to have a self-destructive element. It is the element that compels him to do goofy things, like break campaign laws and steal bad speeches. The Gibbons’ team is much more professional this time, what with the Prince of Darkness Rogich himself running the show. (And I’m not just saying that because some people think I am Siggy.) But it’s still happening. Silly Gib-busses. Queer sexual innuendos. Avoiding debates, I mean, "conversations."

More importantly, Gibbons is hardly the best person on the stump this year. Part of the problem is that the old conservative ideas of the last decade are falling out of favor–finally. And Gibbons is no longer an fiery outsider (of a sort) taking on the established order. He is the established order: a Republican order that is corrupted, war-mongering, and fiscally insane.

Hey Kids! Jim Gibbons’ record in Congress on campaign finance reform here.