When candidate financial reports are anti-disclosure forms

It would be nice to say I’ve calculated the net worth of Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, but federal and state reports make that impossible. I’ve tried, but failed, to see how much their personal wealth has improved during their public lives. The reporting system works against finding those answers.

The state personal financial reports Angle filled out as a Reno assemblywoman during the eight years she was in office are totally useless. But that’s the fault of the reports themselves. The state reports don’t require political candidates to put down any kind of estimates of the worth of anything they own. Angle listed that she owns vacant land in Golden Valley, Ariz., and Kingvale, Calif. But she doesn’t have to say what those parcels are worth. (According to assessor’s records, they’re each worth $11,000, but now Angle says she doesn’t “own” them.)

Another flaw: State law only requires her to list property in adjoining states. She could own a lot more, but we’d never know from the Nevada reports, which are really anti-disclosure reports. (I’ve pointed out this flaw, and others, and legislators have failed to fix it because they don’t want you to know how much land they own.)

Her disclosure reports filed with the Senate Ethics Committee show more detail but not much more.

Her federal report was due on April 10 but was filed on May 19. It showed she and her husband, Ted, a retired Bureau of Land Management employee, have assets worth between $25,000 and $200,000, mostly mutual funds. While the state requires no dollar figure, the federal system permits candidates merely to list a wide range of values.

I noticed a gap. Where was that land in the state reports?

Angle didn’t fill out that report, her husband did. Her spokesman Jerry Stacy said the land is owned by her father and is in a trust, so she doesn’t own the parcels. “In the past Sharron had always listed these properties on state disclosure forms because she is the executrix of the trust.” Because there was no ownership or income, Ted Angle didn’t list the land on the federal report.

However, Stacy said, the campaign’s legal counsel will review the information and determine whether the disclosure forms are correct. “If any mistakes were made, then an amendment will be filed.”

I’ve always found that reviewing these reports, when the candidates actually fill them out themselves, tells me something about the candidates. Is it legible? Angle’s handwritten state reports are completely legible, the benefit of being a former teacher.

But Angle didn’t seem to understand all the questions. Asked how long she had lived in Nevada, in one report she listed eight years. Actually, she’s lived here since she was 3.

When asked to list gifts, Angle included three pages of campaign contributions. Not the entire report, just three pages. Did she not understand the question? Or does she think campaign contributions are gifts?

Stacy said she was “just trying to give more information than needed, just being on the safe side.”

But that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nor did it make sense to list land she doesn’t own.

It may seem nitpicking to point out these kinds of mistakes. But there’s some merit in seeing whether candidates can actually fill out a report and understand the questions. If they can’t do that, then how can they understand complex legislation?

Monday I look at Reid’s personal finance disclosures, which are much more complex. And he’s been thwacked for failing to report land he owned with his close friend Jay Brown.

Apparently, neither candidate can claim perfection when disclosing personal finances.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.