Nevada Supreme Court Commission's Look At Caperton, Strikingly Similar To Las Vegas Prostitution Handbills

.

I was reading the RJ today and saw that David Kihara provided a brief, but interesting follow up on the Commission that was appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court to analyze how Nevada should react to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal. The Commission found that, even though the limit on campaign contributions is $10,000 in Nevada, a judge only need recuse himself if a person contributes more than $50,000. Are they kidding? Kihara clarifies,

"Jeffrey Stempel, a commission member and law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in June proposed several recommendations, including automatic disqualification if a judge receives $50,000 or more from a party during a campaign. . .The proposed $50,000 cap is meant to address 'bundling,' a practice in which individuals follow campaign contribution limits by funneling donations through relatives or corporate entities."

Stempel also recommends "that individuals not be permitted to contribute money to a judge's campaign in an attempt to have him or her disqualified from a case."

This is all so impossible to track, Stempel. That is why 'bundling' occurs. So please explain it to us, who decides if 'bundling' is actually occurring? Who is going to decide if there is an intention to get a judge disqualified via a campaign contribution? Are you telling me that if I contribute to a judicial campaign, my associate contributes, my wife contributes, my best friend contributes and my holding company contributes...we are all considered the same person? While this recommendation is an acknowledged attempt to "address 'bundling,'" it falls grossly short as it will not stop 'bundling' at all. In fact it approves the practice. This will merely force judges to recuse themselves if 'bundling' is in excess of $50,000. That is not a small bad contribution, bytheway. (I've yet to find & read the actual report, so I'll follow up on that later.)

The Commission needs to come back to reality and address the actual contributions by law firms, lawyers and individuals that approach the $10,000 mark. The motivation for such a weak assessment of the Caperton case, I would suggest, comes from the Commission's ultimate desire to NOT take away campaign money from the judges. The Commission has 'rubber-stamped' two practices that are part of the election corruption. The Commission has now: 1. Acknowledged that 'bundling' is an approved practice, givng judges a huge $50,000 cap before they must recuse; and 2. Acknowledged that $10,000 contributions will not warrant recusal.

As I've said before, if Nevada truly wants to get rid of the bias from the judicial system that is generated by campaign election contributions, then they will have to get rid of the incentives: large contributions without recusal. Instead of a 'bundling' rubber-stamp, the Commission should focus on abolishing the practice and setting forth an amount relevant to the $10,000 limit that would warrant recusal. The current recommendation is akin to making prostitution illegal in Clark County, but legalizing the use of prostitution hand-bills as 'exotic entertainment' with nearly zero prostituion enforcement. Oh yea, we already do that. So much for change.

.