ZZZ - GMG - VEGAS INC 2011-2014

14 | 3 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 | C O V E R S T O R Y VEGAS INC actually an extremely important de- bate about free speech, organizational constitutional rights and so forth," said Daniel Stewart, a lawyer at Koch & Scow who does work for the Republican Party. Secretary of State Ross Miller has argued in all three cases that voters de- serve to know who's financing the elec- tion season messages they receive. "It all comes down to basic transpar- ency," he said. "All we're asking is that these groups that are engaging in sub- stantial political speech and trying to influence our elections disclose who is paying for this speech. We're not trying to limit anybody's speech, but we're sim- ply trying to say if you're trying to influ- ence the outcome of the election, voters should know who's trying to influence that outcome." To that end, Miller, a Democrat, brought lawsuits against three groups — Americans for Prosperity, Alliance for America's Future and Citizen Outreach — that he said attempted to influence an election without disclosing donors. n In July 2012, conservative group Citizen Outreach was fined for fail- ing to file expense reports showing how the organization paid for mailers criticizing former Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, during his 2010 re-election campaign. Citizen Outreach has appealed the decision. n In November 2012, the Nevada branch of national conservative group Americans for Prosperity won a lawsuit about whether the group had to disclose donor contribution reports for a nega- tive mailer it published about state Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas. Miller is not appealing that decision. n Also in November, a judge fined Virginia-based Alliance for America's Future for running an advertisement in favor of Gov. Brian Sandoval in the 2010 election. The group did not register as a political action committee in Nevada, and the courts have said the group will now have to disclose who paid for the advertisement. The alliance has appealed the decision to the state Su- preme Court. The varying decisions represent an area of state law in flux, and the con- sequences of the courts' decisions ap- ply directly to you, the voter, in terms of how much you're allowed to know about these groups and in terms of what disclosures the state may require of you if you start circulating political fliers — even among a church or social group. The courts first are weighing what constitutes political speech. Under a law Miller supported during the 2011 legislative session, political speech means you've got to "expressly advocate" for the victory or defeat of a candidate or ballot measure. "It all hinges on express advocacy," said Matt Griffin, partner at the Capi- tol Company, a lobbying firm, who also was secretary of elections for Miller until 2010. "When you cross that thresh- old, you have to disclose." That's the first point where the legal conflict arises. Are these groups advo- cating for one candidate to win or lose, or are they performing a civic duty in helping voters become better educated about candidates? "What you're seeing in these cases is the difficult attempt to try to draw the line between those two types of activi- ties," Stewart said. Many groups exploit that confusion by moving money into political advertis- ing by funneling cash through what the federal Internal Revenue Service calls a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization. So long as these groups aren't primarily political, they can spend money on po- litical advertisements without disclos- politics, FROm pAGE 1 Many groups funnel donations through 501(c)(4) organizations C h R I S m O R R I S "it all hinges on express advocacy. When you cross that threshold, you have to disclose. " — Matt Griffin, partner at the Capitol CoMpany, a lobbyinG firM 20140203_VI01_F.indd 14 1/30/14 11:52:03 AM

• Cover