Many Democrats in the Assembly have not publicly reported the expenditure of thousands of dollars in campaign funds, including money for rent and living expenses during legislative sessions, the Sun has learned.

According to multiple lawmakers familiar with internal caucus discussions, the lawyer for Assembly Democrats instructed them that they do not have to report spending on expenses related to their public office — for example, rent in Carson City during the legislative session or travel to professional conferences.

It’s an apparent violation of campaign finance laws, according to Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat in charge of enforcing those laws. At least three Assembly members did not disclose expenditures to support themselves during the 2012 Legislature

“I haven’t had an opportunity to fully review their side of what happened, but it appears to be a very simple matter,” Miller said. “The law is clear: Anytime you raise money into a campaign account and you spend that money, it is an expenditure that must be reported.”

Miller said his office would contact the lawmakers for clarification and “possibly to issue notices of violation.”

The three lawmakers said they were following the advice of their private attorney, Bradley Schrager, when they elected not to disclose the expenses.

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, characterized it as an honest disagreement over how to interpret laws requiring candidates to report from whom they receive contributions and how the money is spent. She and Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, said they would work with the Secretary of State’s office to find a resolution.

Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, D-Las Vegas, who also admitted to skipping disclosure on her Carson City expenses, said she had no problem letting people examine her bank accounts and how she spends her campaign money.

She said, however, that the requirements for reporting how campaign funds are spent are becoming onerous.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to have every single penny reported just because of the level of burden it really takes on a person,” Flores said. “Maybe if I had a staffer that the state paid for to record every single one of my receipts and ensure they were being kept up full-time, and I didn’t have to leave my day job so I could spend an additional couple of hours working on that.”

State law defines campaign expenses as any money spent to campaign or to “advocate expressly for the election or defeat of a candidate.” The lawmakers said under their interpretation, that does not include expenses incurred while conducting their official duties — an acceptable way to spend campaign money, according to the same law.

While Miller agrees it’s an acceptable way to spend campaign contributions, he disagrees that the expenditures can be kept secret.

“Our caucus counsel has advised us there is some ambiguity in the law,” Bobzien said. “Recognizing the secretary of state has (a different) perspective on the law, I’ll be working with the secretary of state to resolve the matter.”

READ FULL STORY