Public-revenue programs targeting specific industries and named projects

What "transferable" means

A transferable tax credit is one the recipient can sell to a third party. If the production company, data-center operator, or studio backing a Nevada-funded project doesn't owe enough Nevada tax to use the credit themselves, they can monetise it by selling the credit at a discount to a Nevada taxpayer who does owe the tax. This converts the credit from a tax-policy mechanism into a state-issued financial instrument — a marketable asset created by statute.

Transferability matters because it weakens the link between "is this company actually paying Nevada tax?" and "is this company benefiting from the credit?" A studio that pays no Nevada corporate tax can still pocket cash by selling the credit. Critics of AB238 cited this mechanism explicitly; proponents framed it as a workforce-and-jobs measure.

What "abatement" means

A tax abatement reduces or zeroes out tax that would otherwise be owed on a defined activity, asset, or transaction over a defined window. Nevada's data-center, gigafactory, and economic-development abatements typically waive sales-and-use tax on equipment purchases, modified business tax on payroll, and real-and-personal property tax on the facility, for periods up to 20 years.

Who pushes these programs

Each of the programs above had a coordinated industry-and-firm advocacy effort behind it: trade associations, anchor-tenant corporations, employer chambers, and (in the 2025 AB238 case) a labor-funded PAC running paid media. The lobbyists who appear in our 83rd-Session registry representing these clients are listed on each company's client page; the campaign-finance flows are on /donors/.

What's missing

This catalogue covers the largest, most-documented programs. Several smaller programs (workforce training accounts, opportunity zones, NRS 360.755 tier-2 abatements) operate on similar mechanisms with smaller caps. Pending: a complete enumeration linking each program back to the lobbyists, candidates, and committees that supported its creation.

Post-vote retribution pattern — AB238 / film-tax-credit follow-up

Research lead — Nevada Current, May 1 2026

The film-tax-credit fight didn't end when AB238 failed at the close of the 83rd Session. After the November 2025 special session vote on the resurrected proposal, organised labor publicly announced consequences for legislators who voted against expanding the subsidy. One of the most visible follow-throughs is now playing out in the Democratic primary for Nevada Senate District 2: the incumbent who voted against the bill, Sen. Edgar Flores, is being primaried by North Las Vegas Councilman Isaac Barron, whose campaign is being funded almost entirely by a network of twelve PACs all controlled by the same person.

The mechanism: one operator, twelve PACs, single contribution day

Per public C&E filings reported by the Nevada Current, in early 2026:

1. Laborers' Local 872 transferred $95,000 across twelve PACs in a single day.
2. The same twelve PACs each contributed to Isaac Barron's campaign on the same day, totalling $20,000.
3. The twelve PACs combined contributed an additional $45,000 to sixteen other candidates — overwhelmingly legislators who voted for the film bill, or primary challengers running against legislators who voted against it.

The state's per-cycle contribution cap is $10,000 ($5K primary + $5K general). Each PAC individually stays under the cap. Combined, they exceed it. The twelve PACs all share the same registered address (Local 872's main office), the same registered president (Tommy White, who heads Local 872), and an identical "Promoting jobs in Nevada" purpose statement on registration.

The PACs (cross-referenced against our auditor)

Our existing PAC-operator detector identified Tommy White as a 16-PAC operator with $2.5M in total disbursements — one of the largest single-person PAC networks in the state (see his entry on /pac-operators/ for the full per-PAC disbursement breakdown). The article focused on the twelve used in this race; our database has the full network:

• 872 PAC, Laborers for Solid State Leadership, DNC PAC, GOP Government on Parade, Nevada Progressives United PAC, Nevada Jobs Now PAC, NROC LPL EDU, Members Only PAC, Sin City PAC, 6PAC, LV Rat PAC, 2PAC, RIP PAC, 420 PAC, Laborers' Political League-Education Fund Nevada Fund, UCIC Unified Construction Industry Council (inactive)

Several of the names — DNC PAC, GOP Government on Parade, Nevada Progressives United PAC — suggest party affiliation that the underlying operator has nothing to do with. The same operator runs PACs that brand themselves as Democratic, Republican, and progressive simultaneously. That is the PAC-bundling pattern this site documents in detail at /pac-operators/.

Prior pattern: same playbook used against Clark County Commissioner April Becker (2024)

This is not the first time the Local 872 network has been deployed to influence an election after a vote outcome. In 2024, the same twelve-PAC structure contributed approximately $60,000 to April Becker's successful Clark County Commission race. After Becker subsequently voted against the expansion of fuel revenue indexing, Local 872 publicly rescinded their endorsement. The pattern holds across cycles.

Pending action

An election-integrity violation report against Local 872, Tommy White, and the affiliated PAC network was filed with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office in early May 2026 by Strong Public Schools Nevada (a NSEA-affiliated PAC). Status: under review. We are tracking the complaint outcome on our FOIA / public-records pipeline.

Source: April Corbin Girnus, Nevada Current, "Laborers union — and its dozen PACs — try to exact retribution for vote against film subsidy bill," May 1, 2026. PAC-network data cross-referenced against our cf_groups operator database.