Top Senate Democrat got free boxing tickets

[markalot]

Reid denies wrongdoing; Nevada lawmaker has criticized GOP over gifts
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:05 a.m. ET May 30, 2006



In this frame from video, Sen. Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., far left, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., second from left, sit near ringside at the Oscar De La Hoya-Bernard Hopkins championship boxing match in Las Vegas in September 2004.



WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who has criticized Republican ethics, accepted free ringside tickets to three professional boxing matches from Nevada officials who were trying to influence his federal legislation regulating the sport.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.

Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the boxing bill and that he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. “Anyone from Nevada would say I’m glad he is there taking care of the state’s No. 1 businesses,” he told The Associated Press.

“I love the fights anyways, so it wasn’t like being punished,” added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

'Senators ... should be wary'
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts — particularly on multiple occasions — when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

“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,” the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.

“Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided,” the manual says.

Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for his ticket when he joined Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had abstained from taking any votes or actions on the boxing bill because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

Reid: 'I'm not a goody-two-shoes'
In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s clients and partners as they donated to him.

“I’m not goody-two-shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong,” Reid said.

Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff’s partners, firm and clients.

Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. “I think it all was one, the way I look at it,” he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid’s office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.

Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid’s office said the senator never acted on those requests.

A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff’s partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.

Reid said he never would change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former-staffer-turned-lobbyist.

“People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose,” he said.

Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was “the willingness of the press ... to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them.”

Experts: Better to have paid for tickets
Several ethics experts said they believed Reid should have paid for the boxing tickets to avoid violating Senate ethics rules.

Bernadette Sargeant, a former House ethics lawyer, said the Senate would have to examine the specific facts to determine whether Reid violated the gift ban. She said the clearer ethics issue involved Reid’s obligation to avoid the appearance that the free tickets and his official duties were connected.

“From what you are describing, it is such a huge risk that a reasonable person with all the relevant facts would say this creates the appearance of impropriety,” she said. “The more cautious thing, the more prudent thing would be to either pay the tickets or fair market value or not accept the tickets in the first place.”

Attorney Marc Elias, who has represented Democrats in ethics cases and was asked by Reid’s office to call the AP, said he believed Reid should not be penalized for trying to help his state. “There are varying degrees of gift givers,” Elias said. “There is a difference between a gift from a state entity and a gift from a savings and loan.”

Marc Ratner, executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission when Reid took the free tickets, said one of his desires was to convince Reid and McCain that there was no need for the federal government to usurp the state commission’s authority. At the time, McCain and Reid were pushing legislation to create a federal boxing commission.

“I am a states rights activist and I didn’t want any federal bill that would take away our state rights to regulate fights,” Ratner said, adding that he hoped McCain and Reid, at the very least, would be persuaded to model any federal commission after Nevada’s body.

Reid said he remembered talking to Ratner briefly at the fights and knew Ratner was working with his Senate staff on the federal legislation. The legislation ultimately failed to pass in Congress.

McCain’s office said the Arizona senator felt an obligation to pay for the ringside tickets he got from the Nevada commission to attend the Oscar De La Hoya-Bernard Hopkins championship match in September 2004.

“Senator McCain has always paid for his own tickets to boxing matches and sees no reason to change that,” aide Mark Salter said.

Ensign’s office said he attended one fight in the last couple of years with Reid and accepted the free tickets from the commission. But his office said Ensign already had removed himself from the boxing legislation that would have affected the Nevada commission.

Kathleen Clark, a Washington University of St. Louis congressional ethics expert, said Congress should re-examine the exemption allowing gifts by state and federal and local governments because they too can have interest in influencing federal lawmakers like Reid.

“I think he would want to be above approach even when it’s from a state commission and not a private lobbyist,” Clark said. “I don’t think we should make any assumption about a government. The fact is government agencies can act as proxies for different interests. Here it happens to be the Nevada boxing commission, and I would guess it is aligned with certain industry groups.”
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13043895/

[george]

The Senator's Sons
In Nevada, Reid Is the Name to Know

Members of one lawmaker's family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill.

By Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper
L.A. Times Staff Writers

June 23, 2003

Second of two parts.

WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.

The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters — all in Nevada.

As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.

What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.

The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.

Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.

Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons — by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.

The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities — Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson — also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.

The Clark County land bill, which was approved in a late-night session just before Congress recessed in October, reflects a new twist in an old game: These days, when corporations and other interests want to cement a vital relationship with someone in Congress, they're likely to reach out to hire a member of the family.

Reid said he supported the bill because it was good for Nevada — and not because it helped his family's clients. And when it comes to lobbying relatives, he said, he has plenty of company.

"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he said. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."

Seeking favors is as old as the Capitol, but the new tendency to come at it from the side — through family members — may be a consequence of campaign-finance reform: As restrictions have tightened on traditional political giving, interest groups have cast about for new ways to ingratiate themselves.

Nothing strikes quite such a personal note as channeling fees or lucrative jobs to relatives — whether the relatives lobby Congress or perform other services. There are no restrictions. Neither House nor Senate rules bar the practice.

At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.

But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.

In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.

So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.

Reid's chief of staff, Susan McCue, said he has had broad support in his state for the Clark County bill and other legislation that he has championed for those groups.

"In every instance, Sen. Reid acted in the best interest of the people of Nevada and Nevada's economy," she said.

In an internal memo, McCue said Reid's family members had lobbied his staff by "supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance." She described them as "effective advocates for their clients."

Reid said he thought he might have had casual conversations about legislation with his family members but could not remember specific cases or times.

"Have they said something? I am sure they have," he said. "I don't have meetings with my children to go over business things."

Reid's sons — Rory, 40, Leif, 35, Josh, 31, and Key, 28 — work for Nevada's largest law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins.

Rory Reid is a partner in the firm and was a Nevada lobbyist before his election to the Clark County Board of Commissioners in November. Leif Reid is a litigator who has represented mining and resort industry associations in Nevada.

Key Reid was hired to open the firm's Washington office in 2002 and help lead its federal lobbying effort with former Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), who splits his time between the capital and Nevada.

Barringer, 47 and married to the senator's daughter, Lana, is a lawyer, federal lobbyist and partner in the small Washington-based lobbying firm of McClure, Gerard and Neuenschwander.

Barringer and Reid's sons declined to be interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.

Washington lobbying firms must file reports twice a year that disclose their clients and the names of the people representing them. Those reports show that, between them, Barringer and Key Reid have represented nearly every major industry in Nevada, from mining and real estate development to tourism and gambling to the city of Las Vegas. All of those clients rely on the senator's goodwill on Capitol Hill.

[REMgirl]

Snarky McSnark:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Vulgarity warning...

[markalot]

For instance, the desperate, craven efforts by the Republicans and their lackeys in the right wing press to find anything, any goddamn thing, to make sure that Democrats look as corrupt as Republicans.

Well now. The democrats ARE JUST AS corrupt as the republicans. Not more, not less, just the same. Thinking otherwise is ignorant.

THe person who's been caught last is the most corrupt.

[the happy prole]

I think it's ignorant to think Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Generally, the idea is to bribe those with power. And look at which party has just about an unprecendented amount of power right now. Absolute power yadayadyada....

[Slar]

Originally Posted by the happy prole

I think it's ignorant to think Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.

Gonna fold eh? Well I'll see the "equally corrupt" and raise an "equally out of touch with reality".

[BigSugar]

BWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<cough>

edited to add: Harry Reid is a stinking, puss spewing twat. I hope he chokes on vomit....someone elses vomit. you can't dust for vomit, you know.

[markalot]

Originally Posted by the happy prole

I think it's ignorant to think Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Generally, the idea is to bribe those with power. And look at which party has just about an unprecendented amount of power right now. Absolute power yadayadyada....

I think you're right and I think you misunderstood me. Each party is as corrupt as the power they have. Right now repubs have more power, so they are more corrupt in overall numbers, but percentage wise it's always about the same.

[the happy prole]

Yeah, neither party is inherently more corrupt than the other.

It's just a matter of their numbers in Congress, and what they can get away with (both of which massively favor the GOP).

[bjk15]

Originally Posted by BigSugar

BWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<cough>

edited to add: all politicians are stinking, puss spewing twats. I hope they all choke on vomit.... preferably their mistress' vomit.

fixed that for ya

[BigSugar]

Originally Posted by the happy prole

Yeah, neither party is inherently more corrupt than the other.

It's just a matter of their numbers in Congress, and what they can get away with (both of which massively favor the GOP).

I'd hardly call 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Vacancies in the House and in the Senate, Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) "massively" favoring the GOP.

[the happy prole]

Those numbers give the GOP control of both houses, including both ethics committees. Meaning they can get away with more, and they have more opportunities to significantly alter legislation.

[bjk15]

Originally Posted by BigSugar

I'd hardly call 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Vacancies in the House and in the Senate, Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) "massively" favoring the GOP.

such a biased view. i keep imagining that i will see a
but, then i remember who i am thinking of.

and the one obvious thing that prole didn't say that emphatically makes it a massive advantage: the president is a member of the GOP too... huh, how about that. so there is no way that a GOP initiative can be shot down if they vote along party lines. i'd call that massive. not to mention that before too long (and more than likely with the elderly jps) the third executive branch will be quote unquote GOP dominated as well. huh... no massiveness there.

[markalot]

Face facts here though. Many of the dems don't believe their party is as corrupt because they're fucking stupid. The dems wrote the playbook on corruption, but the repubs are the better team right now.

If they're politicians then they're corrupt. Our system of government caps corruption, but doesn't eliminate it.

[the happy prole]

No one wrote the book on corruption. It's been around forever.

From where I'm standing, there's a whole ton of Republicans who don't believe the GOP is more corrupt than the Democrats (I mean as of now, not inherently). Bill Frist is about as bad as they come. DeLay was too. And those are leadership positions. Maxine Waters is pretty small fry compared to Frist. Not because she's less evil, but because she can't screw up our country as badly.

Both sides are just as inherently corrupt. Both sides are also just as prone to cry "witch hunt" when they get their hands caught in the cookie jar.

I'm with you on this, markalot. Let's investigate Waters, Reid, Frist, Jefferson, and everyone on both sides involved with Abramoff.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by BigSugar

I'd hardly call 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Vacancies in the House and in the Senate, Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) "massively" favoring the GOP.

What, pray tell, would then make it "massive" in your mind? And how "massive" does it need to be to inhibit govermental process?

[markalot]

No one wrote the book on corruption. It's been around forever.

Ah, but remember how many years the dems controlled congress, since so many seem to forget how the dems had a lock on congress for years.

...

Democratic majority from 1932 to 1994 (interrupted only by 2 Republican congresses from 1946 to 1948 and 1952 to 1954, and Republican control of the Senate from 1980 to 1986). - taken from this piece found via google: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/160754.html


...

So I think it's silly to think that the current republican corruption is anything new or special. The democrats invented jury rigged districts, political machines, and modern lobbying in order to stay in power for so long, but now that the repubs are in all these young liberals think it's the end of the world and we are seeing corruption at levels not seen before.

If anything we should be happy that the instant media (blogs, etc) we have today makes it harder for our politicians to get away with anything.

[the happy prole]

We can go back and forth forever. You point out the Daly machine and the Kennedys and I can point out Nixon, McCarthy, and Teapot Dome. Hamilton and Jefferson pulled some pretty nasty tricks on each other and neither of their parties bears much resemblance to the modern day Democrats and GOP.

I do agree with you that young liberals are probably skewed in their viewpoint, though I think much of it is simply being young. I remember how bad Tip O'Neil was, they don't. Similarly, you are probably a lot more shocked by Abramhoff and Enron if you weren't around for Abscam and Keating Five. Clinton's impeachment looks damn silly next to Nixon's but if you aren't as aware of Watergate, you miss that.

I also think there are some ways in which this new GOP's corruption is, if not more unethical or new, perhaps special in the sense they are better at it and have given it some new dimensions.

Take DeLay, for example. I think he stands out among recent politicans for two reasons 1) He was so brazen about it and 2) He didn't do it for personal gain as much as he did it for the party. Daly gerrymandered and cheated mostly in his own district and for his own political gain. DeLay gerrymandered everyone's district in Texas for the GOP. In some ways, he gerrymandered the whole nation for the GOP. I would apply that to his dealings with Abramhoff as well. He took the cash and funnelled it to other causes whereas the rest kept the money for their own campaigns/pocketbook.

Daschle and Gephardt certainly weren't peaches, but the former was too milquetoasty and the latter was just too selfish to come up with these grand schemes. They just went with the political winds and helped themselves on the sly. Which is partly why they were terrible political leaders. They weren't willing to get their hands dirty for anyone but themselves.

I dunno. In a way you almost have to tip your hat to DeLay for at least thinking of his party instead of himself. Seriously. But then, you look at how much more damage it does than just a little graft and how cocky he was about it and you think again.

Again, I don't think the GOP are inherently more corrupt right now or ever. I think each successive generation of politicians adapts to laws and public opinion and finds a new twist on how to cheat. And that's exacerbated when there is major shift in party power.

I frankly think the GOP will hold power for a good long time now. And when there is an eventual Democrat (or other party) revolution, you'll see the same thing played out again, both within Capitol Hill and in the arena of public opinion on all sides.

[Homsar]

Originally Posted by the happy prole

Those numbers give the GOP control of both houses, including both ethics committees. Meaning they can get away with more, and they have more opportunities to significantly alter legislation.

I thought a non-vetoing president gave them the power.

[the happy prole]

You know, I honestly don't think the President matters that much. Theoretically, before you may have had to buy off Gingrich AND Clinton and now you only have to buy off Frist. But all that means is they don't bother to bribe the President as much so the executive may actually end up cleaner. These guys are smart and won't spend a dollar more than they have to.

But most corruption is plain ol' kickbacks. Company A gives your campaign (aka you) some cash or perks, you vote for their bill or kick a contract their way. But most of those things end up as riders or buried in a bill. I haven't seen many cases where the President voted the "We Love America's Cute Little Babies and National Parks Proclamation" because it was attached to the "Maxine Water's district gets $5,000,000; Maxine Waters named administrator of funds" rider.

It comes more into play when Hoffa pays Daschle to sponsor or vote for Bill X and Abramhoff pays Frist to sponsor a conflicting bill or vote against Bill Y. With the comfortable GOP majority, Daschle loses. So why bother?

I think control of the Ethics committees is a big deal. Not so much because the ethics people do political hatchet jobs on the other party. If they do that, it kinda makes everyone look bad, plus you're doing the same thing so even among opposite parties there's a "don't ask me, I won't ask you" deal going on.

The problem is that the ethics committee has to do something. Otherwise people might get the crazy notion that our leaders are unethical or something. So every once in a while they have to find a scapegoat. You'd be insane to go after someone in your own party, so you find a minor member of the minority party to cite (but never sanction) for an infraction and it doesn't hurt that those members are probably more vulnerable at election time. You can't touch Pelosi or Daschle because they have enough clout and know enough secrets that you can't riks them going scorched Earth on you. But it probably keeps the newbies on their toes a little bit.