Maybe the real reason the film tax credit bill died in the special session is because of hubris — an overconfidence among supporters that, despite public outcry, lawmakers would hand a few corporate behemoths the keys to our state’s treasury in exchange for building a “Hollywood 2.0” in Summerlin. 

To be sure, it’s easy to understand why supporters would think they were destined to get what they wanted, considering the way Nevada generally approaches economic development. Lawmakers from both parties routinely view corporate welfare as a key tool to diversify our economy, which should have made Hollywood handouts a foregone conclusion in the recent special session. 

Indeed, even I was among those who thought the deal would squeak through the Senate after every attempt to derail the effort fell short in the Assembly. 

However, things didn’t work out quite so well for the studios. In the end, the Senate rejected the proposal and, for the third time in more than two years, the campaign to dramatically expand the state’s moviemaking subsidies failed to produce tangible results.  

While that’s good news for those of us who believe such schemes are bad deals for taxpayers, don’t expect the issue to disappear entirely. It’s unlikely that Hollywood will write Nevada off as a lost cause and fire the high-priced lobbying firms that have been relentlessly trying to whip up support among lawmakers. 

After all, Hollywood isn’t used to taking no for an answer. More importantly, Nevada lawmakers don’t have a great track record when it comes to turning down politically connected businesses or industries asking for taxpayer money.  

Back in 2014, for example, Elon Musk came to Nevada with a hat in hand and quickly received one of the largest “incentive” packages in American history. That wasn’t the first time Nevada handed out special treatment to a particular company or industry, but it certainly signaled to the world that the Silver State wasn’t above indulging in large-scale corporate cronyism at taxpayers’ expense. 

Only a few years later, sports mogul Mark Davis tested our state’s newfound zeal for incentive packages and corporate handouts, securing a publicly subsidized sports facility for his beloved football team — with taxpayers on the hook for more than $1 billion after interest payments are calculated. 

Other corporate enterprises also took notice. Formula One managed to convince state and local authorities to gift it the use of public roadways and subsidize its raceway preparation along the resort corridor in Las Vegas. 

Even the hapless Athletics baseball team managed to squeeze a few hundred million dollars from taxpayers — despite the fact it didn’t even have an accurate rendering of its proposed stadium and was haphazardly bouncing between “binding agreements” trying to find a suitable location. 

With such a history of capitulating to the demands of corporations, sports moguls and special interests, why wouldn’t we expect spendthrift politicians to bow to a parade of Hollywood studios and union organizers trying to pry a measly $120 million per year from taxpayers?

Clearly, proponents had a similar take on Nevada’s appetite to dole out public funds. From the beginning, it seemed as if there was no doubt among the proposal’s supporters that it would move forward in one fashion or another. 

In 2023, for example, the first iteration of the tax credit expansion was nonchalantly introduced late in the session — as if vetting the proposal was a mere formality that deserved no more than a few weeks of open discussion. 

That effort fizzled out, however, as sine die quickly approached. As a result, the issue had to be shelved until the next time lawmakers would meet in Carson City in 2025. 

The frantic last few weeks of 2025’s regular legislative session, however, once again doomed the proposal along with a number of other legislative priorities. And so, after two years of not really getting anywhere, proponents looked to a special session to finally move their long-awaited legislation forward — a move that demonstrates just how confident the bill’s supporters were that enough votes could be cobbled together to finally get it to the governor’s desk. 

The confidence, however, was misplaced. Party infighting, legislative shenanigans and the chaos of the special session were simply too much for advocates to overcome. The bill failed to get a majority support in the Senate, and once again the dream of a publicly subsidized “Hollywood 2.0” failed to become reality. 

But that doesn’t mean Nevada lawmakers are finally ready to abandon the sort of economic development schemes that require doling out mountains of taxpayer money to private companies. 

For starters, “free money” is something corporate cronies are forever interested in pursuing, and Nevada lawmakers are likely to feel substantial pressure to keep indulging those special interests — Hollywood’s most recent failed attempt notwithstanding. 

More important to remember is that the vote last month on the film tax credit expansion wasn’t some landslide rejection of corporate cronyism The bill quite nearly passed. There are plenty of reasons to believe a few minor tweaks might be all that’s necessary to earn a couple more votes from lawmakers in the next regular session, especially with union organizers deciding to flex their political muscles in the interim. 

Indeed, actor Mark Wahlberg continues to have confidence in Nevada’s ultimate submission to Hollywood demands, telling the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when” a film tax credit expansion is passed in the Silver State. 

At first, that might seem like a bit too much confidence for someone who has seen their pet legislation die for the third time in two years. 

Then again, maybe that hubris is understandable given our state’s usual penchant for indulging in crony political favoritism for the sake of “economic development.”  

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.