Report on Berkley could have been worse but still can harm her

Reading it from the perspective of a political foe plotting to derail any political future she might have, the report offers enough negativity to hurt her.

The committee’s conclusions were definitely a mixed bag. There was plenty of language that could be used if anyone wanted to dump on her even further about her ethics. Yet there was verbiage that cleared her of some, yet not all, of the allegations made against her.

Her punishment was the release of the report, which can be used by future political foes.

The Ethics Committee report wasn’t kind to Berkley’s political future when it stated baldly that Berkley “violated House rules and other laws, rules and standards of conduct by improperly using her official position for her beneficial interest by permitting her office to take official action specifically on behalf of her husband’s medical practice.”

In simple language: She allowed her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, direct access to her staff regarding issues.

The committee dinged Berkley over the four times she and her office helped her husband’s company get overdue bills paid by federal agencies. The committee found the practice unethical but said it didn’t enrich the Democratic congresswoman unduly. She was not corrupt, the report said.

Apparently, Berkley had forgotten the flap created when one of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s sons lobbied his office. That culminated in Reid’s 2003 ban on relatives lobbying his office.

Family members shouldn’t get better access than the rest of us.

If the report on Berkley had been released during the Democrat’s hard-fought battle for the Senate against incumbent Republican Dean Heller, it would have provided fodder for both sides.

The report would have put to rest the idea that her efforts to prevent the closure of a kidney transplant center at University Medical Center was a way to enrich her husband’s company, Kidney Specialists of Southern Nevada.

The committee praised Berkley for her candor and cooperation and concluded that she “participated in a delegation-wide effort to save a program which had a connection to her husband she did not fully understand.” Her husband’s company had a $700,000 contract to provide kidney care to UMC, which she failed to disclose in 2008 when trying to block the closure.

The committee, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, said the House should create clearer guidance regarding conflict of interest rules, suggesting her problem was based on the lack of clarity rather than Berkley’s lack of judgment.

Berkley said she did nothing wrong, although earlier she conceded she should have disclosed that her husband was a doctor when she addressed medical issues in Congress.

Here’s the problem: While Nevada media outlets focused on the mixed results of the committee’s findings, the national press focused on her violation of House ethics rules.

Any good political operative knows that a damning headline is priceless in a negative television ad.

The New York Times, which in 2011 first raised questions about the ethics of Berkley’s actions on behalf of her husband’s medical practice, carried this online headline: “Panel Finds Lawmaker Broke Ethics Rules.”

When her 14-year career as a congresswoman ends in January, Berkley is not likely to sit around eating bonbons and reading romance novels. She hasn’t closed the door to another political run, although she hasn’t disclosed any specifics.

Yet if this high-energy woman runs for another political office, I suspect Las Vegas Sands Corp. honcho Sheldon Adelson will try to block her because of their falling out when she was his government affairs adviser.

Adelson couldn’t defeat her when he first tried in 1998. But 2012 was the year his money, her ethics woes and the “none of these voters” option helped defeat her and elect Heller.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at 702-383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison