Is this how it works?

And so Sherrie Doyle’s campaign finance odyssey ends with a whimper, not a bang.

Last week, the former Reno city councilwoman pled down 13 felony counts of theft to one gross misdemeanor. For the ironically impaired, “gross” can be a homonym.

There are a couple problems with this resolution. First, how often are 13 felony counts of any crime plea-bargained down to a slap on the wrist for a regular citizen? If a criminal were to break into a home and commit 13 felony crimes, victim advocates would be outraged if the charges were bargained down to a single count of conspiracy to commit theft. This appears to be special treatment for a politician.

But second, this was an opportunity for voters to see if the law really required their elected officials to be as above board in their dealings as the average person must be.

Why is this case particularly rankling? As frequent readers know, back on Feb. 3, 2000, the RN&R published a story called “Paying Debts.” In it, we revealed that Doyle might have broken several campaign finance laws. On contribution reports, she reported taking $12,600—which is more than the $10,000 limit from an individual. She signed an IOU stating she received more than $39,000 total from political activist Beth Miramon.

After our story broke, the Nevada Division of Investigation launched an investigation. After 11 months, a report was turned over to Secretary of State Dean Heller. Then it went to Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa for further investigation and possible prosecution. Then it went to the Washoe County Grand Jury, which returned felony indictments. Then it went to District Judge James Hardesty.

In five weeks, it will have been three years since the story broke. Three-quarters of the councilwoman’s time in office was shadowed by the investigation. That’s understandable to some extent. This appeared to be a precedent-setting case, so it was reasonable that the wheels of justice turned slowly.

What did northern Nevada voters learn from this case? They learned that there is no criminal punishment for people who accept more than the legal limit in “campaign contributions.” Northern Nevada voters learned that politicians could put anything they want on a campaign-finance report, because it is not illegal to lie, it’s illegal not to turn in a report. Northern Nevada voters learned that there is no system in place to monitor people who run for political office. The secretary of state can recommend prosecution; the attorney general can prosecute, but if there is a change in attorney general, the deputy attorney general can be asked to resign, and the prosecution is finished. Chalk up another instance of irony, because attorney general-elect Brian Sandoval used the “more than $10,000 limit” against his opponent John Hunt in the election.

Well, now we know the precedent that was set by the case: People who run for office in Nevada can fearlessly do anything they want to with money they receive from contributors.

It’s a sad commentary on election law in Nevada. It shows an absolute disdain for the voter and for the law.

No wonder people are apathetic.