IN-KIND DONATIONS… STILL NOT THAT COMPLICATED

Maybe Lorton could get one of his ‘women supporters’ - his verbiage not ours - to explain in-kind donations to him.

And here’s where it gets even more interesting.

If Eddie Lorton wants to talk about transparency, maybe he should start with his own backyard. Take a look at your C&E filing yesterday.

What about his team? They can’t help you out?

Specifically, Diana Hoffman — who helped organize a fundraiser at a private residence, and was paid $1,000 by Lorton for campaign management according to his contribution and expense report. She’s a former lawyer out of California she should understand in-kind donations. There are food and drink on the table so there had to be expenses.

How about former Washoe County Commissioner Marsha Berkbigler who threw a shingdig for Lorton, she’s pictured next to Lorton holding a wine glass. We’re surprised Berkbigler didn’t insist on a in-kind listing.

So let’s ask the obvious question:

These events aren’t free.

• The venue has value

• The coordination has value

• The support has value

And under Nevada law, those are typically considered in-kind contributions.

So where are they?

Were they disclosed? No.
Were they valued correctly? No.
Or were they just… overlooked? Again and again by Lorton. Yes.

Because this is exactly how transparency breaks down — not in big, obvious ways, but in the details campaigns hope no one checks.

One needs to ask what else is Lorton overlooking on these disclosures, and for how many years, he’s been filing these reports since 2014.

You can’t demand credibility while cutting corners on disclosure.

And you definitely can’t lecture others when your own reporting raises questions.

This isn’t complicated.

It’s accountability.