Nevada Governor Lombardo’s Campaign Fueled by Bundled Donations, Raising Transparency Concerns
Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo’s 2025 campaign fundraising haul of $4.3 million was significantly bolstered by “bundling” arrangements – a legally permissible practice allowing donors to circumvent contribution limits by donating through multiple names – sparking debate over transparency and the influence of money in state politics.
The Rise of Bundling in Nevada Campaigns
Approximately $1.9 million, or 44 percent, of Lombardo’s total fundraising came from these bundled donations, defined by The Nevada Independent as contributions from entities with connected addresses exceeding single-cycle limits. This figure doesn’t even include instances where individuals at the same address each contributed the maximum $10,000. By contrast, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford received roughly $50,000 through similar bundling tactics, representing just 2 percent of his fundraising total, while Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill’s campaign demonstrated minimal reliance on the practice.
Bundling is not a new phenomenon in Nevada politics, having been utilized by previous administrations, including that of former Governor Steve Sisolak. However, the scale of its use in Lombardo’s campaign has drawn scrutiny.
Legal Loopholes and Corporate Influence
Nevada’s campaign finance laws permit direct corporate contributions to candidates, a key distinction from federal regulations and the laws of approximately one-third of U.S. states. This legal framework allows entities like Caesars Entertainment to donate $80,000 to Lombardo’s campaign through eight affiliated companies. Furthermore, state law places no limits on donations to Political Action Committees (PACs), creating additional avenues for large contributions.
“Campaign finance systems like these render individual contribution limits moot,” explained Ken Miller, a political science professor at UNLV.
Lombardo’s campaign and associated PACs collectively raised around $9 million. An analysis of 1,300 donations revealed significant funding from the gaming and real estate industries, with prominent donors including Las Vegas hotel mogul Robert Bigelow, casino executives Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, and Las Vegas gambler and developer Billy Walters, who was previously convicted of insider trading.
Ford’s Response and the Small-Dollar Donor Base
Attorney General Ford’s campaign has criticized Lombardo’s fundraising approach, arguing that his $15 million cash on hand is driven by “corporate interests.” While Lombardo’s campaign raised double Ford’s total, Ford’s campaign secured approximately 25 times more funding from donations under $100.
In response to questions about its reliance on bundling, Lombardo’s campaign asserted that the composition of its donor base is “nothing unusual or improper,” emphasizing that bundling has been a long-standing practice for Nevada governors across party lines. The campaign also highlighted that 84 percent of its contributions were linked to Nevada addresses, compared to 42 percent for Ford and 95 percent for Hill, with the vast majority of Hill’s contributions originating in Reno.
Ford’s campaign countered by noting that over half of its individual donors are from Nevada, and it received donations from all 17 counties within a month of launch, totaling 10,000 donations – a record for a gubernatorial campaign, with 90 percent under $125.
Hill, who raised significantly less than her opponents, stated plainly, “I don’t think you should be able to buy your way into office.”
Top Donors and Industry Dominance
The largest donations primarily flowed to Lombardo’s PACs. The Fertittas, owners of Station Casinos, each contributed $1 million to a Lombardo-affiliated PAC, with Station Casinos itself adding another $1 million – collectively accounting for roughly one-third of all funds raised by Lombardo in 2025.
“It’s always going to raise that question for regular folks — what is this person buying? What is that interest? Why are they spending so much on elections?” said Aaron McKean, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “You can’t necessarily always point to ‘this large contribution led to this favor later on.’ But it does … undermine the confidence that the public has in our elected officials.”
Nevadans for Fair Recovery, a PAC funded by Uber and previously involved in a failed ballot initiative to cap attorney fees, donated $250,000 to Lombardo’s PAC. Uber has been actively investing in state politics across the country, according to Miller.
Bigelow and Walters led direct donations to Lombardo’s campaign, contributing $220,000 and $200,000 respectively, utilizing multiple companies tied to single addresses. Walters also donated to candidates from both parties, including GOP Clark County Commissioner April Becker, Democratic Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson, and Republican state Senate candidate George Harris.
Gaming and Real Estate Lead the Way
The gaming industry was the dominant force in donations to Lombardo, with the Fertittas and Station Casinos contributing $3 million. Lombardo’s PAC also received $200,000 from South Point Hotel and Casino, $158,000 from Boyd Gaming entities, and an additional $40,000 from individual Boyd employees. The Venetian contributed $100,000, while MGM Resorts donated $50,000 through multiple entities, opting not to contribute to Ford’s campaign.
Donors linked to the real estate and development sector contributed approximately $1.6 million. Leading Builders of America, a Washington, D.C.-based group, donated $300,000 to Lombardo’s PAC, while a consortium of groups tied to Brett Torino, a commercial real estate developer, contributed $120,000. Bigelow, Walters, and Torino collectively comprised about one-eighth of Lombardo’s total campaign contributions.
This industry’s influence is particularly notable given that housing was a key priority for Lombardo during the legislative session, resulting in a $133 million allocation for “attainable housing” and $21 million for rental assistance. However, Lombardo faced criticism for vetoing bills aimed at capping rent increases and reforming the eviction process. He also reportedly opposed a bill to cap corporate homebuying, aligning with President Trump’s stance on the issue.
Limited Appetite for Reform
Campaign finance reform in Nevada has seen incremental changes, such as adjustments to unspent fund usage, but large-scale overhauls have proven difficult to achieve. Eliminating corporate donations, according to Miller, would likely require a significant scandal or a shift in the balance of power. Even if corporate donations were prohibited, unlimited contributions to PACs would remain a viable avenue for influence.
McKean suggested that public funding of campaigns, through matching small-dollar donations, could decrease corporate influence by amplifying the power of individual contributions.
Despite these potential reforms, the current system allows for substantial corporate and high-dollar influence in Nevada elections, raising ongoing questions about the integrity of the political process and the representation of everyday citizens.
