How accountability works on this site
Three layers feed each politician's profile: public records (NV Secretary of State, NELIS, court rolls), aggregations (sums, ratios, vote counts) computed from those records, and auditor research leads (statistical patterns flagged for follow-up).
Companion: methodology — the technical version. Glossary — terms.
1. Public records
Each profile cites only public records. The 4 main sources:
- NV SOS Aurora campaign-finance dataset — every contribution and expenditure filed with the Secretary of State (~760K rows since 2006). Per NRS 294A.
- NELIS roll-call records — every recorded vote cast by state legislators in the 83rd Session, plus committee minutes. Public per NRS 241.
- Lobbyist + client registrations — quarterly filings under NRS 218H.
- PERS database — Public Employees Retirement System payouts, public per NRS 286.
2. Aggregations
From those records we compute per-politician metrics: cumulative contributions, donor concentration (HHI), top-1 donor share, lobbyist payments paid out, sponsored bills, vote count. These are math — no judgment, just sums.
You can verify any metric by clicking the source link in the campaign-finance section: it points back to the actual NV SOS Aurora candidate filing search. The coverage report shows what data we have for each politician.
3. Auditor research leads
The NPE auditor pipeline applies pattern-detection to the aggregations. When a pattern crosses a statistical threshold, we flag it as a research lead. The 5 flag types we surface:
PERS revolving-door
Politicians whose name matches the PERS database during or after their public-officer tenure. PERS benefits are public; matches are not allegations of wrongdoing. They flag a conflict potential worth investigating: is this politician now drawing PERS while voting on PERS funding levels? See NRS 286 + NRS 281A.
Quid-pro-quo chains
A 4-step money-flow pattern: politician's campaign → registered lobbyist L → L's client C → contribution to politician → vote favoring C's bill. Each step is documented in public records; the chain is the synthesis. Severity score reflects dollar-size + outcome alignment. Frame: pattern, not proof.
Recusal-failure findings
Bills where the politician voted AND a campaign-contributing client testified, AND the vote aligned with the client's stated position. Per NRS 281A.420, public officers must disclose pecuniary interest in bills affecting them. Failure to recuse on aligned votes is a pattern, not a violation — the disclosure rule has nuance.
Donor concentration flags
Applying the DOJ antitrust HHI threshold (>0.25) to a candidate's donor base. Indicates funding came from a small number of donors — a structural risk signal for potential influence concentration.
State-contractor donor
Vendors paid by NV state agencies who also donated to a candidate. Patterns indicate pay-to-play surface — not legal violations, but a research lead for journalists. Frameworks: NRS 333 + NRS 218H.
4. What to do with findings
Every flag links to the cited public record. To turn a flag into a story:
- Click the source link to verify the underlying record.
- Check the methodology version that was current when the flag was generated (methodology archive).
- For deeper investigation, file a public-records request using our NRS 239 templates.
- Contact the politician's office for comment (links in their profile rail).
- If you publish, please cite this site (CC-BY 4.0 — see the bulk dataset license).
5. What we DON'T do
- We don't accuse politicians of crimes. Auditor flags are research leads — patterns, not proof.
- We don't editorialize by party. The same flag types apply to Republicans, Democrats, Nonpartisan officeholders alike.
- We don't publish unverified tips. If you have one, send it via /tips/ with a public-records source.
- We don't accept advertising or sponsored content.