Nevada’s latest campaign finance bill is sparking debate among conservatives who value transparency but worry about expanding government authority. Assembly Bill 79, championed by Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, proposes several changes to how campaign funds can be used and regulated.
Your Tax Dollars at Work?
Have you ever wondered how politicians spend the money they raise for campaigns? Under current Nevada law, candidates cannot use campaign funds for personal expenses. This makes sense – donors give money to support a political message, not to pay for a candidate’s groceries or vacation.
But AB 79 would change this. The bill would let elected officials use campaign money for childcare, elder care, and health insurance if they “would be unable to afford” these costs because of their public service.
“If it’s a cost that would not exist without your public office, you can use campaign funds to pay for it,” explains Gabriel Di Chiara, chief deputy secretary of state.
This might sound harmless. After all, who could be against helping parents run for office? But this change blurs the line between campaign expenses and personal benefits. It opens the door to using donor money for things that have little to do with campaigning.
The Transparency Trap
“three guiding principles for the upcoming biennium are modernization, innovation and transparency.”
Yet parts of this bill actually limit transparency. The measure would exclude non-profit organizations from registering as Political Action Committees (PACs).
Joshua Skaggs, legislative affairs director for the Nevada Republican Party, warned this:
“creates transparency concerns, as it encourages a major expansion of dark money in our elections.”
The bill would also make campaign account information given to the Secretary of State during investigations confidential. While privacy matters, this shields important information from public view.
Big Government Gets Bigger
At its core, this bill represents a familiar pattern: government officials creating more rules and more bureaucracy. The bill requires candidates who receive just $100 in contributions to file a notice of intent to run with the Secretary of State – even before they officially declare for any specific office.
This creates yet another form to file and another requirement to meet. For everyday citizens considering a run for office, it’s one more hurdle to clear.
What This Means For You
If you donate to a candidate, your money might now pay for their babysitter or health insurance – not just their campaign signs and advertisements. Is that what you intended when you wrote that check?
More troubling is the trend. Today it’s childcare and elder care. Tomorrow, what other “personal” expenses might be justified as campaign-related?
What Conservatives Can Do
First, call your representatives and ask tough questions about this bill. Why exclude non-profits from PAC registration requirements? Why make campaign account information confidential during investigations?
Second, demand clear definitions of what qualifies as expenses that “would not exist without your public office.” Without strict guidelines, this provision could be easily abused.
Finally, watch how your representatives vote on this bill. Those who support ever-expanding government authority deserve extra scrutiny come election time.
While helping more people run for office is a worthy goal, we must be vigilant about maintaining clear boundaries between campaign funds and personal benefits. The answer to making public service more accessible isn’t necessarily to relax the rules on campaign spending – it might be to pay public servants a fair wage in the first place.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
