Nevada Republican David Flippo’s campaign is racking up controversies that would be hard to believe if they weren’t documented in federal filings and campaign statements.
First, his campaign credited a woman who died in 2024 for a political donation. Then came questions about missing financial disclosures. And just to round things out, the campaign had to walk back a claim that Flippo received a Bronze Star for valor.
That’s a lot of explaining for a candidate trying to convince voters he belongs in Congress.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the latest headache involves a $7,000 contribution attributed to Marilynn Mack, a member of a prominent Las Vegas family who died more than a year before the donation was reported.
The campaign says the attribution was a clerical error. But the episode adds to a growing list of problems that have put Flippo’s campaign under scrutiny — and made what was supposed to be a relatively comfortable Republican race more complicated.
Last month, Flippo’s campaign reported accepting $7,000 from Marilynn Mack, an amount that exceeds the contribution limit for an individual donor in a single election.
Instead of simply returning the excess, the campaign transferred $3,500 to Mack’s mother, Joyce Mack, a prominent Las Vegas philanthropist whose family name adorns UNLV’s Thomas & Mack Center, according to the *Journal*.
The campaign later amended its Federal Election Commission filings again, dividing the money between primary election debt and the general election.
Campaign spokesperson Rory McShane told the *Journal* the original attribution was a clerical mistake. Marilynn Mack did not respond to the newspaper’s questions.
The campaign’s explanation leaves an obvious question: What actually happened to the money, and how did a contribution end up attributed to someone who had already died?
The available reporting does not establish who provided the funds or whether the error involved anything beyond the campaign’s explanation. But the revised filings have added another item to Flippo’s growing list of campaign problems.
And the dead donor is only the beginning.
Flippo has also come under scrutiny for missing financial disclosure deadlines.
Despite lending his campaign $1.8 million, he has not filed a personal financial disclosure, according to the *Journal*.
That is a substantial amount of money for a candidate to put into his own campaign, making transparency about his finances especially important.
Voters deserve to understand the financial interests and obligations of the people seeking public office. When required disclosures are missing, it becomes harder to get that picture.
The campaign has also faced problems with its reporting of contributions, including the Mack episode. Each correction adds another reason for voters and campaign watchdogs to look closely at the operation.
For a candidate seeking a seat in Congress, the basic paperwork should not become a recurring story of its own.
The financial questions might have been enough for one campaign to deal with. But Flippo has another controversy involving his military record.
His campaign previously claimed he had earned a Bronze Star for valor. However, the medal he received in 2004 did not carry that distinction.
Flippo blamed campaign staffers for confusing the awards, according to the *Journal*, and the claim was subsequently retracted.
The distinction matters. The Bronze Star Medal can be awarded for meritorious service or achievement, while the “V” device specifically recognizes acts of valor in combat. A claim about receiving the award for valor is therefore more specific than simply saying someone received a Bronze Star.
The campaign’s correction did not make the original claim disappear. Instead, it became another episode that Flippo had to explain.
Between the disputed medal description, the missing financial disclosure and the donation attributed to a deceased woman, the campaign has been forced to answer questions on multiple fronts.
Even Nevada’s retiring Republican congressman isn’t buying it.
Flippo is also facing criticism from a prominent member of his own party: retiring Rep. Mark Amodei, who has represented Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District for 15 years.
Amodei has called Flippo a fraud and said he will not support him.
In an interview, Amodei made clear that party affiliation would not persuade him to defend a candidate he distrusts.
“Being a Republican doesn’t mean I’m going to stand in front of a fraud freight train,” he said, according to The Journal.
That is a striking rebuke from a fellow Republican, particularly in a district the party has held for decades.
Amodei’s comments also underline that the questions surrounding Flippo are not coming only from Democrats. The retiring congressman has publicly broken with the candidate seeking to succeed him.
Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District covers Reno, Carson City, the Lake Tahoe area and much of the state’s northern high desert. The district has not elected a Democrat since it was established in the 1980s.
But the race has drawn more attention as Flippo’s campaign problems have piled up.
The Cook Political Report downgraded the contest from Solid Republican to Likely Republican in its assessment of the race against Democrat Teresa Benitez-Thompson. An independent candidate could also draw votes away from Republicans.
That rating does not mean the district has become a toss-up. It does, however, reflect a less certain outlook than the previous Solid Republican classification.
Flippo still has a path to victory, but the campaign’s controversies have given opponents plenty of material to scrutinize.
Campaigns make mistakes. Financial reports get amended, staffers sometimes get details wrong, and candidates occasionally have to correct public statements.
But Flippo’s campaign is now dealing with several separate controversies: a donation attributed to a woman who died in 2024, missing personal financial disclosures despite a $1.8 million campaign loan, and a retracted claim about a military honor.
For now, Flippo’s campaign has a growing credibility problem, and plenty of explaining left to do.
