When Nevada’s Attorney General Forgets the Law Applies to Him Too | Deep Dive Podcast

Editor’s Note: Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this podcast. The transcript below may not be 100% accurate.

Austin 0:00
Welcome to the deep dive. Today we’re digging into a stack of sources focused on political ethics, specifically looking at those sometimes fuzzy lines and modern campaigning. We’re centering on a pretty high profile case coming out of Nevada. Our mission here is really to analyze this recent ethics complaint against Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford. He’s also currently running for governor, which adds another layer,

Angela 0:23
exactly, and this deep dive, it’s fundamentally about trying to pin down that legal boundary, you know, between being a public servant and having political ambitions. It’s a conflict we see all the time, really, the public expects officials to serve them. But then there’s the reality of running a campaign which is about private gain, essentially. And what’s interesting here is the tool allegedly used to cross that line. It’s very modern, social media.

Austin 0:47
Okay, let’s unpack that. So this complaint was formally filed by Bertie zagrowski, who’s a retired Chief Deputy District Attorney, filed it with the Nevada commission on ethics.

Angela 0:56
And the core allegation, it’s simple on the surface, but incredibly important. Attorney General Ford is accused of basically sending people from his official state social media account, that’s the taxpayer funded one at Nevada G sending them over repeatedly to his personal campaign page at Aaron Ford, NV,

Austin 1:16
right? And why does that connection matter so much? Because that personal page, that’s where you find all the political stuff, right? Endorsements, messages, and, crucially, links where people can donate money to his campaign for governor. So the accusation is essentially using state resources to directly help his campaign fundraising. Looking through the source material, what really jumps out is it’s the sheer scale of what’s being alleged here. This isn’t being framed as one accidental tweet or some staff are messing up once?

Angela 1:41
No, definitely not. It’s presented as a consistent pattern of behavior. And that’s, well, that’s much more significant legally, the filing actually CITES, get this more than 130 examples of these posts, posts where the official ag account, the one people follow because of the office’s authority, was used to push people straight to his private political fundraising. Wow.

Austin 2:01
130 examples. That’s it. That’s a lot. That number alone must be causing some headaches. The complainant, sadrowski, didn’t mince words either. He called it a willful violation of our state’s ethics laws and an alarming breach of the public’s trust.

Angela 2:16
And that phrase willful violation, that’s really key legally. It suggests intent, you know, not just carelessness or a mistake. The argument is, these were deliberate actions done again and again over a period of time. Think about it like this, yeah, in the physical world, an official would never be allowed to use state letterhead or the state mail system to send out campaign flyers asking for money. Right?

Austin 2:37
Exactly. It’s basically the digital version of using taxpayer funds to pay for the stamps and envelopes for your campaign mailer.

Angela 2:43
Precisely so when you direct 1000s of followers, people interested in the official work of the Attorney General to a page that’s asking for campaign cash, you’re effectively using the state’s platform, its power, its infrastructure, to subsidize your run for governor. It makes that line between public duty and private ambition just vanish, and that’s the core problem being alleged. Okay, so to really grasp why this complaint is potentially so serious, we need to look at the actual laws cited in Nevada. They draw some pretty firm lines about separating public resources from personal benefit. Yeah,

Austin 3:19
let’s do that. But since this is audio, maybe let’s try to avoid just reading out statute numbers in plain English. What’s the basic ethical rule that AG Ford is accused of breaking

Angela 3:27
here? Okay? Fair point. The first really fundamental rule is you cannot use government time, government property or government equipment for your own personal gain. That’s the core principle.

Austin 3:37
Simple enough. The statute for that one.

Angela 3:39
That principle gets written into law as Nevada revised statute 281, a point 4007, it specifically bars using government property or equipment for a significant personal or pecuniary interest. And since that campaign page has donation links arguing there’s a pecuniary interest, a financial interest seems pretty straightforward.

Austin 4:02
Got it. And there must be a second rule too, right? One that relates not just to the official themselves, but making sure the whole agency stays out of politics. That’s the

Angela 4:10
other critical piece. Yes, the agency itself, the AGs office, in this case, is supposed to be apolitical. This is covered by NRS 281, 8.520 that law explicitly says a state agency can’t spend money or do things to promote a political candidate, so if the official Attorney General’s social media account, which is run by the agency, is seen as promoting Ford the candidate, well, that statute could be in play too. You know,

Austin 4:32
what’s really interesting is that the complaint seems to go beyond just what Ford did. It also brings up precedent about how the public might perceive what he did.

Angela 4:40
Yes, that brings us to the broader issue of public trust beyond just the specific misuse. The complaint points to a 2022, decision from the Nevada commission on ethics in re Mayberry, and that ruling basically said that even the appearance that the government is endorsing a political campaign is a problem. It creates an appearance of impropriety.

Austin 4:59
Okay, so is it? Argument is this isn’t just an appearance of impropriety, it’s a deliberate, repeated pattern of actual misuse. And the whole thing is made even more serious because the person being accused is the state’s top lawyer,

Angela 5:13
exactly the Attorney General is the one who’s supposed to uphold and oversee these very ethics laws. When that official is the subject of such a sweeping complaint, it just amplifies the perceived seriousness of the breach dramatically.

Austin 5:25
This whole Nevada situation, it really feels like a perfect example of these broader ethics standards we see everywhere. Let’s maybe zoom out a bit to the basic principles. This case shines a light on Nevada law itself. Starts with this really clear statement, doesn’t it? In NRS 281, A, Q, 10200, a, public office is a public trust and shall be held for the sole benefit of the people.

Angela 5:46
That’s the bedrock philosophy. Absolutely, the specific laws we just talked about, they’re really just the tools to protect that fundamental trust. Another key tool is an NRS 281, a point four, 8002 this one prohibits using your public position to get or give unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages.

Austin 6:06
Okay, unwarranted privileges. That sounds a little open to interpretation, maybe like if I’m a public official and I use my official Twitter to announce a new policy, but I tack on a link to my campaign page at the end. Is that advantage unwarranted? Where’s the line?

Angela 6:22
That’s a great question, and that’s where advisory opinions from the Ethics Commission come in to clarify the advantage is considered unwarranted because you’re benefiting from the office’s prestige and its taxpayer funded platform, things the public provides to boost your private political goals. The Nevada Commission has specifically advised that the power and prestige of the public office shouldn’t be used to help private political endorsements.

Austin 6:45
So what kind of practical advice does the commission give officials if you’re in office but also want to run for something else? How do you navigate that?

Angela 6:52
They lay out some pretty strict guidelines, actually in an advisory opinion, number 19, 124, a, it says an official can mention their official title in a private political endorsement. But, and this is crucial only if they include very clear disclaimers stating it’s not a government endorsement. And most importantly, they absolutely cannot use any government resources. That means no official letterhead, no government email, no uniforms or badges, and critically for this case, no taxpayer funded social media accounts or official photos. The goal is total clean separation.

Austin 7:28
We see similar ideas at the federal level too, right, which often kind of sets the tone for state rules. Yeah, the sources mentioned the OGE standards,

Angela 7:34
right? The OGE the Federal Office of Government Ethics, they set the rules for the executive branch, and their guidance is pretty straightforward. Government property needs to be protected, used properly. Official time is for official duties. Yeah, and you definitely can’t use your government job title or position to even suggest that your agency endorses any outside group product or, importantly, political candidate.

Austin 7:55
It’s like that lighthouse standard you know, your public job is for the public full stop. And if you look at something like the Hatch Act at the federal level, that really hammers home the idea of keeping politics out of government

Angela 8:08
work. It absolutely does. The Hatch Act restricts federal employees political activities while they’re on duty or using government resources. It just shows how seriously the system takes keeping official duties and political campaigning separate. The principle is consistent whether state or federal, your office isn’t supposed to be your personal campaign marketing department.

Austin 8:28
Okay, so the complaints been filed, we understand the legal framework being cited. The evidence those 130 or so links is on the table. What happens now? What’s the process look like, and what are the potential consequences if violations are found?

Angela 8:41
Well, the first step is really procedural. The Nevada commission on ethics has to review the complaint. They need to decide, first, if they even have jurisdiction over the matter, and second, if the complaint presents enough evidence to actually warrant a formal investigation. If they do accept jurisdiction, then investigators will start digging deeper. They’ll likely conduct interviews, maybe subpoena documents, gather more evidence and eventually move the case forward.

Austin 9:06
And let’s say the commission does find that violations occurred. What kind of penalties could ag Ford potentially face in Nevada?

Angela 9:13
Within Nevada’s system, the commission has the power to impose civil penalties, so fines, basically they can also issue official reprimands in really serious cases. They also have the option to refer the whole matter to the courts for potentially further action.

Austin 9:28
You know, I think to really get a sense of the potential seriousness here, it helps to look at how similar things are treated elsewhere. You mentioned some federal guidelines earlier that sounded quite, quite strict.

Angela 9:39
They are quite sobering. Yeah, if you look at guidance from federal watchdog agencies like Treasury’s OIG, for example, misusing government property for unauthorized things is taken very seriously for a first offense of that kind, the suggested penalty range goes from just a written reprimand all the way up to potential removal from office.

Austin 9:59
Wow. Removal from office for misusing government property, for campaigning potentially on a first offense. That’s that really highlights how seriously it’s viewed.

Angela 10:08
It absolutely underscores the institutional importance placed on protecting public resources. And similarly, if you look at guidelines for prohibited political activity things that might violate the spirit of the Hatch Act, the penalties suggested often start at a 30 day suspension and go up to removal again, even for a first offense. Now obviously these are federal standards, not Nevada’s directly, but they give you a pretty clear picture of the level of gravity assigned to these kinds of breaches across government systems.

Austin 10:34
And one last crucial point, the timeline, the sources we looked at suggest these ethics investigations aren’t exactly speedy. This could potentially drag on into 2026

Angela 10:45
that’s a really critical piece of political context here. Yes, this ethics review process is likely going to unfold right alongside the main ramp up of ag Ford’s campaign for governor. So regardless of what the final ruling is, just the investigation itself, having these ethical questions hanging over the campaign is almost certainly going to be a significant factor throughout his bid for higher office. Hashtag, tag, outro, so

Austin 11:06
for you the listener, this case really serves as a vital lesson, I think, in how political ethics operate today. We’re way past just worrying about using Office stationary anymore. The real battleground now is often the social media feed. That core tension is still the same, though, where does legitimate, necessary public information stop, and where does using a public platform for your own political gain begin? This Nevada case, especially with those 100 to 30 plus links cited, it gives us a really clear, concrete test case to watch.

Angela 11:35
Yeah, and fundamentally, this all comes back to trust in government, doesn’t it, when any official appears to use a state platform, one funded by taxpayers to help their own political career. It does more than just potentially violate some statute. It chips away at public confidence. It makes people question the commitment to accountability to limited government. It’s a serious erosion of the trust that democracy really needs to function properly. We’ll leave

Austin 12:00
you with a final thought, one that was actually raised in the source materials we reviewed. It’s a question to keep in your mind as you follow this case, perhaps through the Nevada commission on ethics website, if they can’t follow the rules, we already have rules about something as basic as using taxpayer resources. Why would we trust them with more power? Oh, the social media case, really it’s the modern version of testing that fundamental contract between elected officials and the people they’re supposed to serve.