| REDRESS |
|
|
THE RIGHT DECISION, AT LAST But Ruling in Mailer Dispute Doesn't Take the Ethics Commission Off the Hook Editorials, Las Vegas Review Journal, 10-01-02, P. 8B It's time for some serious restructuring at the Ethics Commission... The vote wasn't close. But it should have never been taken. On Friday, the State Ethics Commission voted 6-0 to dismiss a complaint filed by District 37 Republican Assembly hopeful Earlene Forsythe - who lost by nine votes - against her opponent in the recent primary, Francis Allen. Ms. Forsythe contended that she was defamed by telephone calls and campaign mailers produced and paid for by the Republican Liberty Caucus. But the fliers and phone calls are clearly protected by the First Amendment, as the commissioners conceded. Even so, Ms. Allen had to hire an attorney to defend herself from the allegations before the commission. And Republican Liberty Caucus members George Harris and Dan Burdish had to submit themselves to Inquisition-like questioning by the panel. And that's why it's time for some serious restructuring at the Ethics Commission. The problem is it's expected to enforce laws that can't be squared with the Constitution. The commission's legal authority was limited a year ago, when a federal judge in Northern Nevada threw out a law which allowed the commission to fine citizens who brought ethics complaints against elected officials. Now, a group of lawmakers, the Nevada Press Association, the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Nevada ACLU are challenging the law permitting the commission to issue fines against "any person" for making "false" statements with the intent to impede a candidate's success. The law has been used to fine Assemblyman Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, in 1998, for a truthful statement he made about an opponent. It was used to harass Howard Copelan, editor of the High Desert Advocate in West Wendover; for an editorial he wrote about a mayoral candidate. And then there was the Forsythe complaint. State officials have no right to rule on the appropriateness of political campaigns. The panel has no role to serve if it is to operate as speech police who run ramshackle over the rights of individuals to participate in the rough-and-tumble of self-government. If the 2003 Legislature doesn't abolish the Ethics Commission altogether, it should amend the statutes guiding the panel's mission to bring them in line with the First Amendment. | ||
|
|
||
|
WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
| ||
|
| ||
