I've been trying to sort through Harry Reid's confusing financial disclosure scandal for the last couple of days. I'm still trying to get a handle on all of the details, but have come to a conclusion similar to that of the Washington Post.

THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. 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.

The real problem here is not necessarily the deal itself -- it is the cover-up. Why hang up on a reporter who calls asking questions? Why attack teh integrity of those who raise questions about the deal? Why not simply issue amended financial disclosure materials? By failing to act, Harry Reid created an appearance of impropriety where I and others would have been willing to let the matter go. Instead, like any number of perceived financial irregularities by politicians on both sides of the aisle, we are forced to look more closely for wrongdoing where there may not be any.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.