THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

September 20, 2006

Dean Heller
Nevada Secretary of State
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV. 89701

Dear Secretary Heller,

I am writing to file an official complaint and to request an investigation concerning what appears to be an illegal campaign contribution by an entity registered with the Secretary of State’s office known as the Bristlecone Political Action Committee (PAC).

For the record, please note that Bristlecone PAC was filed on March 6, 2002  by Dina Titus for the stated purpose of “support Democratic legislative candidates” (copy attached).  The PAC’s address, 1637 Travois Circle in Las Vegas, is the same address state Sen. Dina Titus lists as her home address on the Nevada State Legislature website (copy attached).  Ms. Titus is listed as the sole officer of the PAC, as well as the entity’s Resident Agent.

According to the Bristlecone PAC’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Report filed on January 17, 2006 and signed by Ms. Titus (copy attached), Bristlecone PAC made a $10,000 contribution to Dina Titus’ gubernatorial campaign (“Friends for Dina Titus”) on June 10, 2005. 

That contribution, I believe, is a violation of NRS 294A.300 which clearly states that “It is unlawful for a member of the Legislature” - which state senator Titus is - “to solicit or accept any monetary contribution...for any political purpose during the period beginning (a) Thirty days before a regular session of the Legislature and ending thirty days after the final adjournment of the a regular session of the Legislature.”

I believe the Legislature adjourned that year on June 7, 2005; therefore, solicitation or acceptance of a $10,000 contribution to Ms. Titus’ gubernatorial campaign on June 10th would clearly be a violation of NRS.  And this is where things get a little fishy. 

The Titus gubernatorial campaign didn’t report receiving the $10,000 contribution from Bristlecone PAC until July 10, 2005.  Now if the Bristlecone PAC located at Sen. Titus’ home in Las Vegas cut a check for $10,000 on June 10, 2005, then why didn’t the Titus gubernatorial campaign, located just a few blocks away and in the same zip code, report receipt of that $10,000 contribution until July 10, 2005?  I know the post office can be a little slow at times, but come on.  Are we really to believe that a $10,000 check that Dina Titus mailed to herself didn’t arrive for a month?

If Dina Titus (the PAC) cut a $10,000 check to Dina Titus (the gubernatorial candidate) on June 10th, but Dina Titus (the gubernatorial candidate) didn’t report receiving the check until July 10th, it would appear Dina Titus may have (1) unlawfully withheld an illegal contribution for 30 days in order to skirt the NRS prohibition, or (2) post-dated an illegal contribution on her campaign report in an attempt to hide it from the public.  At the very least, this discrepancy should require that the Titus campaign produce a copy of the cancelled check to verify the exact date it was deposited in the bank.

But even if it did take a month for the check to be mailed up the street, and even if it was deposited on July 10th, why did Dina Titus (the PAC) mail Dina Titus (the gubernatorial candidate) a $10,000 campaign contribution on June 10, 2005 - well within the 30 day prohibited period for soliciting or accepting contributions?  Who solicited this contribution?  Are we to believe that Dina Titus sent herself a $10,000 contribution unsolicited?  Or did Dina Titus unlawfully solicit herself?

It should be noted that when asked about this contribution by Las Vegas Review Journal reporter Molly Ball in a September 19, 2006 story (copy attached), Titus spokeswoman Hilarie Grey claimed the discrepancy was just a typo; that the contribution was actually cut from Bristlecone PAC on July 10th and deposited by the Titus gubernatorial campaign on the same day.  If that’s their contention, again a copy of the cancelled check should be provided to your office to verify this “typo.”

However, even if it was a typo, it was incumbent upon the Titus campaign to file an amended campaign finance report to reflect the accurate information and correct the false information they originally provided to your office and the public.  But as of this date I can find no such amended report on the Secretary of State’s website, which I believe may be a reporting violation of NRS in its own right.

Finally, I bring to your attention the fact that Dina Titus originally stipulated that the purpose of Bristlecone PAC was to “support Democratic legislative candidates.”  It smells bad enough that Ms. Titus would set up a PAC and then use it to give herself $10,000 for a legislative campaign for state senate on January 3, 2005 - a year in which she was not running for re-election to the state senate. But to use that PAC to give herself an additional $10,000 for a gubernatorial campaign is clearly a violation of the stated purpose of the PAC.  I don’t know if this is illegal or merely unethical, but I would appreciate your office investigating this and advising if any law has been broken.

I will note that Ms. Titus did file an amended registration (copy enclosed) for Bristlecone PAC on August 30, 2006, changing the stated purpose of the organization to “to help elect Democratic candidates” instead of “support Democratic LEGISLATIVE (my emphasis) candidates.”  However, that change was made over a year after the $10,000 contribution was made to her gubernatorial campaign in violation of the PAC’s originally stated purpose.  At the very least, shouldn’t the contributors to Bristlecone PAC have been contacted, and their permission obtained, before money donated for the purpose of helping LEGISLATIVE candidates was funneled, perhaps illegally, to Ms. Titus’ gubernatorial campaign?

I recognize that this is a busy time of year for your office; however, with the election just a few short weeks away I hope your office can complete an expedited investigation of this complaint. Thank you for your consideration.

      Respectfully yours,

      Chuck Muth
      President
      Citizen Outreach

cc:  Attorney General George Chanos

TITUS ADMITS TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION,
GIVES BACK THE MONEY

September 2, 2006

(Carson City, NV) - In response to a complaint filed by Citizen Outreach on September 20th, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Dina Titus admitted today that her Bristlecone PAC violated state law and that her gubernatorial campaign filed a false report. 

In a letter to Secretary of State Dean Heller today, Titus admitted to the alleged improprieties and agreed to return a $10,000 contribution Bristlecone PAC gave to her gubernatorial campaign within the proscribed 30-day “cooling off” period at the end of a legislative session.

“In her letter to Secretary Heller, Sen. Titus complains that our action was ‘retaliatory’ in response to her own campaign finance complaints against Jim Gibbons,” said Chuck Muth, president of Citizen Outreach.  “But the fact is, she broke the law.  All the spin in the world won’t change that fact.  Nor does it change the fact that Dina Titus can dish it out, but sure doesn’t have the temperament take it.”

Of particular interest is the fact that the Titus campaign earlier tried to explain away the illegal contribution by telling reporters that there was a “typo” in Bristlecone’s campaign finance report; that the $10,000 check in question was, in fact, received on July 10.  The campaign has now been forced to admit they didn’t tell the truth about the date this contribution was received.

“Perhaps worse than being caught violating campaign finance laws, at least politically speaking, is being caught not telling the truth to reporters and the public,” concluded Muth.  “Nevadans can no longer take anything Sen. Titus says at face value. She’s lost credibility and all benefit of the doubt.  What Dina Titus has now is an Al Gore problem.  Voter beware.”

Muth is referring to a series of whoppers then-Vice President Gore was caught telling during the 2000 presidential campaign.  He also said that now that Sen. Titus has admitted to a willful violation of the law, Citizen Outreach is considering further action, perhaps an ethics complaint or even a legal complaint with the Attorney General.

- 30 -