Is Chris Hicks Too Connected to Get Reelected?

Matt Addison on Chris Hicks Host Committee in September 2025 … but no longer … read on. We question if Hicks has refunded Addison’s $5,000 contribution … you know, because of all that controversy.

Erased from the Invite — But Not the Ledger?

When the fundraiser invitation for Chris Hicks’s March 4, 2026 event at Pinocchio's Bar & Grill began circulating, one couldn’t help but notice the host committee reads like a Reno “who’s who.” Business leaders, attorneys, familiar names.

All that seemed missing was a voiceover from a celebrity gossip columnist introducing the lineup.

But beyond the glossy optics, something else stood out: a name that once would have been expected on such a list appears absent.

Back in September 2025, Hicks kicked off his campaign at Lakeridge Golf Course, with assistance from Duncan Golf Management — an in-kind contribution totaling $4,200. (Voters concerned about development issues around Lakeridge/Duncan Golf may want to keep that in mind in the June Primary.) At the time, support from well-known legal and business figures signaled a strong and interconnected donor base.

Heads up Save Lakeridge.

One of those figures was Matt Addison, an attorney with McDonald Carano, who contributed $5,000 to Hicks’ campaign. Addison’s name, however, is not on the current host committee list for the March 4th gathering.

Matt Addision contributed $5,000 to Hicks on April 17, 2025.

The omission comes amid ongoing public attention surrounding former Judge Bridget Robb, whose resignation left Department 13 vacant. Robb has been tied to allegations involving the personal life of Addison and another attorney at McDonald Carano — matters that are expected to surface in court proceedings soon. As always, allegations are not findings, and the legal process will ultimately determine the facts. Plus, interesting enough, Reno City Attorney Karl Hall’s Office will be the folks handling the case against Robb - you know the same Karl Hall on Hick’s host committee.

Still, in politics, perception often moves faster than verdicts.

Host committees are carefully curated. Names are added for strength, removed for strategy. Campaign teams routinely adjust optics as circumstances evolve. That is not unusual — it is campaign management 101.

Who knew one little alleged ex-girlfriend stalking a new girlfriend incident would get Addison’s name removed from Hick’s host committee. Seems a bit harsh.

The more interesting question is not whether a name disappeared from an invitation. It is whether financial contributions remain unchanged when public associations become politically inconvenient. If a campaign quietly distances itself from a donor’s name, does it also revisit the donor’s money? Or does the contribution stay put while the optics shift?

There is nothing illegal about accepting lawful contributions from individuals not charged with wrongdoing. But voters are entitled to ask whether consistency matters. If an association becomes uncomfortable enough to remove from a host list, is it still comfortable enough to bank?

Campaigns are about alliances. They are also about judgment.

In the end, voters are left with a simple question: when the guest list changes, does the ledger?

Chris did you refund Addison’s $5,000 contribution?