The Auction of Nevada's Democracy: How Corporate Cash and Dark Money Threaten Free Elections

The Financial Landscape of Nevada’s 2026 Elections

As Nevada prepares for its 2026 gubernatorial and state elections, the financial disclosures reveal a disturbing reality about the state of American democracy. Governor Joe Lombardo, seeking a second term, enters this election year with approximately $15 million at his disposal, while his best-funded challenger, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford, begins with a comparatively modest $2 million. This staggering 7.5-to-1 financial advantage represents more than just numbers on a balance sheet—it symbolizes the profound imbalance in our political system that privileges wealth over ideas, corporate interests over constituents, and financial muscle over democratic principles.

The detailed campaign finance reports show Lombardo’s official campaign account holding $9 million with $4.5 million raised last year. More concerning are the two political action committees affiliated with the governor—Nevada Way and Better Nevada—which combined hold $5.9 million after raising $4.7 million in 2025. The majority of this PAC fundraising, $4.5 million, flowed through Nevada Way PAC, with top donors including Station Casinos and the Fertitta brothers (Frank and Lorenzo), each contributing $1 million. Additional substantial contributions came from South Point Hotel and Casino ($200,000), Venetian Las Vegas ($100,000), Boyd Gaming ($100,000), and Caesars Entertainment ($70,000).

The Dark Money Problem

Perhaps most alarming is the $266,000 raised by Better Nevada PAC, all from a single source: an Ohio-based dark money outfit called A Public Voice Inc. This organization represents the exact type of opaque, unaccountable political spending that undermines transparency and accountability in our elections. Dark money allows wealthy individuals and corporations to influence elections without public scrutiny, effectively creating a shadow political system operating alongside—and often overwhelming—the visible democratic process.

Lombardo also maintains more than $115,000 in his legal defense fund, established after his 2022 Republican primary challenger Joey Gilbert contested his victory. The governor later used this fund to defend against ethics violations related to improperly using his Clark County sheriff’s badge and uniform in campaign materials—a concerning pattern of blurring lines between official government positions and political campaigns.

The Democratic Challengers

On the Democratic side, Attorney General Aaron Ford, who officially launched his campaign in July, raised $2.2 million last year with $1.5 million on hand. His affiliated Forward Nevada PAC raised an additional $470,000. While Ford’s campaign claims this represents “one of the strongest fundraising starts by a gubernatorial challenger in Nevada history,” the massive disparity between the two campaigns creates an inherently uneven playing field that should concern every Nevada voter regardless of political affiliation.

Other Democratic candidates include Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill, who has raised approximately $271,000 since September with $60,000 on hand. Hill has criticized her opponents for “bragging about their fundraising totals” while “real Nevadans are struggling,” accusing them of being “more interested in selling out than in actually addressing our severe problems in the state.”

Down-Ballot Races and Financial Disparities

The financial imbalances extend throughout Nevada’s political landscape. In the attorney general race, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro starts with $815,319 compared to State Treasurer Zach Conine’s $656,200. However, Conine’s Let’s Get to Work PAC raised $1 million from a single donor—Blockchains founder and CEO Jeffrey Berns—while Cannizzaro’s affiliated PACs raised just $49,000.

The lieutenant governor race shows the closest financial matchup, with Republican incumbent Stavros Anthony holding $232,026 and Democratic challenger Sandra Jauregui reporting $225,390. Other statewide races, including treasurer, secretary of state, and controller positions, similarly reveal significant financial disparities that could determine outcomes more than candidate qualifications or policy positions.

The Corrosive Influence of Money in Politics

This financial landscape represents nothing less than a crisis for American democracy. When candidates can amass war chests exceeding $15 million through corporate donations and dark money networks, we must ask ourselves: who exactly do these politicians represent? The answer, increasingly, appears to be their wealthy donors rather than the constituents they’re elected to serve.

The casino industry’s overwhelming financial support for Governor Lombardo—totaling millions from Station Casinos, Venetian Las Vegas, Boyd Gaming, Caesars Entertainment, and others—creates at minimum the appearance of influence peddling that erodes public trust. When specific industries can contribute seven-figure sums to political campaigns, ordinary citizens rightly wonder whether their interests will be represented equally in the halls of power.

Dark money represents an even more insidious threat to democratic governance. Organizations like A Public Voice Inc., which contributed $266,000 to Lombardo’s Better Nevada PAC, operate without transparency or accountability. Citizens cannot know who’s behind these contributions, what interests they represent, or what favors they might expect in return. This secretive political spending fundamentally contradicts the principles of open government and informed consent that underpin our democratic system.

The Principle of Equal Representation

At its core, democracy depends on the principle that every citizen’s voice carries equal weight. When political campaigns become increasingly dependent on massive corporate donations and dark money, this principle is shattered. Wealthy interests gain disproportionate influence, while ordinary citizens find their voices drowned out by the cacophony of moneyed interests.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of concentrated wealth influencing government. While they couldn’t have imagined the scale of modern campaign financing, their concerns about factions and special interests undermining the public good resonate powerfully today. James Madison’s warning in Federalist No. 10 about the “violence of faction” seems particularly prescient when examining Nevada’s current political fundraising landscape.

Solutions for Restoring Democratic Integrity

This crisis demands immediate and comprehensive campaign finance reform. We need stronger disclosure requirements that ensure all political spending—including through PACs and dark money organizations—is transparent and accessible to voters. Contribution limits should be strengthened to prevent any single donor or industry from exerting disproportionate influence. Public financing options could help level the playing field for candidates without access to wealthy networks.

Most importantly, we need citizens to recognize the threat that unlimited money in politics poses to our democracy and demand change. When elections become auctions rather than debates of ideas, we all lose. The integrity of our government, the fairness of our laws, and the very principle of equal representation hang in the balance.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Democracy from Special Interests

Nevada’s 2026 election fundraising reports should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans who care about democratic governance. The massive financial disparities, corporate influence, and dark money operations revealed in these filings represent a clear and present danger to the principle of government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

We must demand better from our political system. We must insist on transparency, accountability, and fairness in how campaigns are financed. And we must remember that democracy is not a spectator sport—it requires active citizen engagement to ensure that our government remains responsive to the people rather than the privileged few with the deepest pockets.

The future of Nevada’s democracy—and by extension, American democracy—depends on our willingness to confront these challenges head-on and rebuild a political system that truly serves all citizens equally, regardless of wealth or connections.