Harry Reid, some boxing tickets, and the biggest non-story of the day

The political world is abuzz over a major “scoop” from the [tag]AP[/tag] about [tag]Harry Reid[/tag] and some alleged improprieties. As congressional [tag]scandal[/tag]s go, it’s about as vapid and meaningless as a story can get. The AP should be embarrassed for running it.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted [tag]free[/tag] [tag]ringside[/tag] [tag]tickets[/tag] from the [tag]Nevada Athletic Commission[/tag] to three professional [tag]boxing[/tag] matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada’s agency feared might usurp its authority.

The AP’s [tag]John Solomon[/tag] goes on to explain that the Senate’s [tag]ethics[/tag] rules “specifically warn against taking such gifts — particularly on multiple occasions — when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.”

So, is there anything to this? Not even a little. In fact, the closer one looks at the details, the better [tag]Reid[/tag] looks.

First, Reid got the tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission, a state government agency, so there’s no ethics violation. Second, after accepting the tickets, Reid voted against the interests of the Commission, not for them, which was consistent with Reid’s position on the issue (in this case, increased regulations) all along. You can’t have a scandal when the lawmaker accepts a gift and then does the opposite of what the gift-giver wants.

It’s also worth noting that this same writer, the AP’s John [tag]Solomon[/tag], is the same reporter who wrote a fairly absurd article that attempted to link Reid to Jack [tag]Abramoff[/tag] — but left out key facts. It was sloppy reporting, but instead of taking Solomon off Reid’s beat, the AP runs another item pointing to a non-existent controversy.

The truth is Reid is clean. He’s always been clean. In the 1970s, when he was chair of the Nevada Gaming Commission, Reid worked with the FBI to catch mobsters who were trying to bribe officials.

There had been a decrease in Mob activity, but organized crime was again investing in Las Vegas, and for four years Reid confronted wiseguys like Tony (the Ant) Spilotro, who had been sent to Las Vegas by a Chicago branch of La Cosa Nostra, “the Outfit,” and was known for killing his victims by squeezing their heads in a vise. In 1979, Reid barred Spilotro from all casinos.

In July of 1978, a man named Jack Gordon, who was later married to LaToya Jackson, offered Reid twelve thousand dollars to approve two new, carnival-like gaming devices for casino use. Reid reported the attempted bribe to the F.B.I. and arranged a meeting with Gordon in his office. By agreement, F.B.I. agents burst in to arrest Gordon at the point where Reid asked, “Is this the money?” Although he was taking part in a sting, Reid was unable to control his temper; the videotape shows him getting up from his chair and saying, “You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!” and attempting to choke Gordon, before startled agents pulled him off. (emphasis added)

Josh Marshall suggested that the AP’s Solomon might be “developing something of an [tag]Ahab[/tag] complex with that Great White Whale of the Senate, Harry Reid.” It’s hard to believe otherwise. In this case, however, the AP and Solomon will have to go fishing somewhere else.

“…the closer one looks at the details, the better Reid looks.”

That line sums up perfectly why Reid is about to be screwed in the court of public opinion.

  • The secret ballot would solve a lot of problems. The law makers could accept the bribes they seek and, like Reid vote the way they want. If how they voted was secret then the bribers wouldn’t know if they got what they paid for or not. Conventional wisdom says they would soon learn it didn’t pay to bribe in the case of the secret ballot. Sell your vote with fingers crossed. Take the money and vote like you want to.

    A ticket or even several tickets to boxing matches is hardly a Las Vegas size bribe. In the place where money flows in rivers they can surely do better than event tickets. If I was Reid and was on their side I would be inclined to retaliate by voting against them for such a paultry bribe.

    If tickets can be considered a bribe then what about dinner? Given a choice I would take dinner over a boxing match. That’s just me personally. I don’t care for boxing. From now on all state dinners are dutch treat and visiting dignitaries can spend the night at motel 6, their expense.

  • Two disheartening traits of the media conspire on a story like this: (1) the desire to appear “balanced,” even if the facts are unbalanced; and (2) the love of a horserace or contest because it is easy to cover – it has built in tension.

    The conjunction of these traits leads the media to want the “culture of corruption” story to have two sides. So strong is that desire that they will manufacture two sides if they have to.

  • Bill, I assume you’re joking about secret votes, but one never knows these days. Citizens of course need to know how their members of Congress are voting so that they can make informed decisions when election time comes around.

  • TPMMuckraker is pointing out that a key line in Solomon’s article (about how Reid ultimately voted against the Commission’s interests) has now been deleted, making Reid appear more “guilty” than ever.

    And this article has now wormed its way onto Yahoo Headlines.

  • The explanation of the rule gives me pause that this is a “nonstory.” The article quotes the Senate ethics manual as follows: “Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence or elicit favorable official action…Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided[.]”
    The article doesn’t mention any specific penalties, but does get at the core matter: the hint of impropriety. In that regard, how Sen. Reid actually voted is immaterial; his actions give the appearance of impropriety and could be construed as influence-peddling. The fact that the opposite appears to be true is somewhat comforting, but this issue is stickier than you’re making it out be. The article points out that his Senate colleagues have taken stronger stances to avoid this very appearance.

  • Comments are closed.