Berkley conflict?

A “Congresswoman’s Cause Is Often Her Husband’s Gain,” was The New York Times headline Tuesday. The newspaper detailed how interventions by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., have played a role in helping her physician husband, kidney specialist Larry Lehrner, grow a lucrative, 21-doctor, 12-office dialysis operation, in turn making the congresswoman “one of the richest members of Congress, as she or her husband hold assets valued from $7 million to $23 million.”

When kidney transplants at University Medical Center were failing at an alarming rate, federal regulators three years ago moved to shut down the program. But Rep. Berkley “led a successful effort to get the officials from Washington to back down,” The Times reported. Rep. Berkley said her intervention was about the health of Nevada families. “But the congresswoman’s efforts also benefited her husband, a physician whose nephrology practice directs medical services at the hospital’s kidney care department — an arrangement that expanded after her intervention and is now reflected in a $738,000-a-year contract.”

Over five years, Rep. Berkley “pushed legislation or twisted the arms of federal regulators to pursue an agenda that is aligned with the business interests of her husband,” The Times reports, co-sponsoring five bills and writing “letters to regulators to block enforcing rules or ease the flow of money.” In return, Dr. Lehrner built a political action committee that has steered more than $50,000 to Rep. Berkley.

“This is a very serious conflict of interest,” James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, told the Times.

“Congressional ethics rules are murky,” The Times acknowledges. “Lawmakers can take steps that financially benefit a spouse as long as the benefit is broadly available and there is no ‘improper exercise of official influence.’ ” Still, the “intermingling of Ms. Berkley’s public and private life … is striking even among her peers on Capitol Hill.”

Rep. Berkley, whose district covers most of urban Las Vegas, responded, “I won’t stop fighting to give Nevadans access to affordable health care just because my husband is a doctor, just like I won’t stop standing up for veterans because my father served in World War II.”

But no one is likely to believe The Times published this report because it’s against quality, affordable health care. Nor is this some partisan attack, drummed up by the GOP as Rep. Berkley prepares to challenge Sen. Dean Heller next year.

At this point, it appears Rep. Berkley’s efforts were less narrowly tailored to help her spouse than the egregious case of Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., whose abuse-of-power trial before the House Ethics Committee was postponed only after leading Democrats blocked subpoenas and fired the lead lawyer. Pressure from Rep. Waters’ office resulted in a $12 million federal loan for OneUnited Bank — in which Waters’ husband owned $350,000 worth of stock — and a unique exemption from accounting rules one FDIC examiner described as a “travesty of justice.”

Rep. Berkley may not have stepped so boldly across the line. But these revelations — and questions — are not going to go away. Where was the disclosure? Her explanations need to be considerably more open and substantive.