Wild About Harry
Wow, the media is picking up the story about Harry Reid's lucrative land deal and running with it. The Philadelphia Inquirer has an editorial, the WaPo has one, too and it appears even more major newspapers a writing about it. Harry is going to have some 'splainin' to do.
A lucrative land deal benefiting U.S. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) deserves full scrutiny by the Senate ethics committee.
In 1998, Reid purchased undeveloped residential property on the outskirts of Las Vegas for $400,000. He bought one lot outright, and a second lot with a partner, Jay Brown. In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a corporation created by Brown. Reid retained an ownership stake in the corporation and continued to pay taxes on the property. There was no written agreement; Brown told the Associated Press that the two had been friends for 35 years and didn't need one.
So the Senate Democratic leader engaged in a seven-figure handshake and didn't feel the need to disclose all the details. Experts on Senate ethics rules say Reid should have disclosed the sale in 2001 on his annual ethics report, and informed Congress of his part-ownership in Brown's corporation. Reid didn't.
After the land was rezoned for a shopping center, the corporation sold it in 2004. Reid received $1.1 million in the sale, turning a neat profit of nearly $700,000 in six years.
While now insisting he did nothing wrong, Reid is also offering to make a "technical change" to his earlier ethics reports if the ethics committee so desires. Simply giving the Democratic leader a mulligan is hardly the way to handle this case. When the Senate debated ethics reforms earlier this year, Reid was out in front to demand the toughest of standards from lawmakers.
This is precisely why I warned against the "Culture of Corruption" campaign theme. It is kind of obvious that the folks in Congress and national politics just don't live like the rest of us. I sure never had any friends cut me in on a million dollar land deal. Whether it was a true violation, or a technical violation of the ethics rules, Harry has been very loud about pointing fingers at Republicans. That is a dangerous precedent he set for himself. As the WaPo puts it:
As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid's dealings doesn't cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers' financial affairs.
Ouch. I have a feeling Harry will be absent from making any statements about the election for a little while.
Other Links to this Post
-
bRight & Early » First Cup 10.13.06 — October 13, 2006 @ 8:20 am
-
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Reid Influence — October 13, 2006 @ 11:35 am
-
A Blog For All — October 13, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
By jpe, October 13, 2006 @ 7:47 am
Experts on Senate ethics rules say Reid should have disclosed the sale in 2001 on his annual ethics report
It wasn’t a sale. It was a capital contribution.
By Gaius, October 13, 2006 @ 7:52 am
A distinction without a difference in practical terms. The appearance of impropriety is there no matter how it is nuanced.
By biwah, October 13, 2006 @ 8:34 am
I agree that there is a distinction, but also that it doesn’t have any meaningful difference in this case.
As someone who has vaguely like Reid, I feel obliged to weigh in and say he should be held accountable for violating the disclosure rules.
By daveinboca, October 13, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Sen Minority Leader Reid should hang up his spurs instead of hanging up the phone on AP. Even the liberal planets around the NYT sun are agog at the arrogance of this girlie man for his land deals with a “former mobster.” [BTW, what is the statute of limitations for being mobbed up?]
Sounds like the Dems are beginning the slide to Putinization before they are even elected to a majority status. The Russian KGB dwarf is busy giving parts of the economy to Russian mobsters, while his KGB pals and other cronies take the choicest parts of the economic pie.
Making a million without reporting it should be regarded as at least equivalent to e-mails and IMs to House pages, but look for silence by Pravda on the Hudson and the dinosaur networks. As I was told long ago by a lefty scamster from Columbia U named Mark Rudd, “No fault on the left.”