The Mathematics of Morality: Do Campaign Contributions Come First and Ethics Later?
Nevada Secretary of State Contribution and Expense Reports - Devon Thomas Reese received three contributions from Stephen Kromer. Isn’t Reese looking towards a mayoral run in 2026?
When Campaign Cash Comes with Handcuffs: Should Kromer's Political Donations Be Returned?
The arrest of Stephen Kromer, formerly of Kormer Investments (he resigned from his family’s business in February 2025 when these charges started to bubble up) on 31 criminal counts took place May 16, 2025. With $9.1 million in taxpayer money allegedly vanished from a failed rural internet project, the spotlight now turns to those who benefited from Kormer's political generosity before his fall from grace.
While Kormer certainly deserves his day in court—innocent until proven guilty is more than just a legal platitude—the politicians who cashed his checks face a different kind of trial: one in the court of public opinion.
Among those now awkwardly checking their campaign ledgers is a certain city council member who pocketed $2,000 from Kromer. Ironically, this same official is currently navigating his own ethics violations investigation. One might wonder if having two ethical clouds hanging overhead is getting a bit crowded.
Meanwhile, a county commissioner who received Kromer's financial blessing has built her political brand on being squeaky clean. Her carefully cultivated image as the paragon of political virtue now faces an uncomfortable question: Does "always doing the right thing" include keeping campaign contributions from someone facing dozens of criminal charges involving misappropriated taxpayer money?
Nevada Secretary of State Contribution and Expense Reports - Clara Andriola. in Andriola’s case the money came from Kromer Investments where Stephen Kromer worked in his family’s business until February 2025. Let’s remember Kromer Investment offices were listed at the same address as Uprise Fiber at 1150 Matley Lane, Reno.
The mathematics of morality is straightforward: When $9.1 million goes missing and some of that same money may have funded political campaigns, the ethical calculus isn't particularly complex.
Some might argue that returning the money implies the donor is guilty. Others might counter that holding onto potentially tainted funds while pontificating about public trust creates its own kind of verdict.
What's certain is that while Kormer awaits his fate in the justice system, these elected officials face judgment in a different venue—one where the evidence is already public, and the jury is comprised of voters with increasingly short patience for "business as usual."
So should they return the money? Perhaps the better question is: Can they afford not to?