Front-page story or no, Berkley’s all in for Senate

First off, Rep. Shelley Berkley is not stonewalling the press.

Last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee claimed Berkley was avoiding reporters in the wake of a Sept. 5 New York Times story that outlined potential conflicts between her official duties and her husband’s medical practice.

(The Times piece noted Berkley has introduced legislation affecting kidney doctors, accepted campaign contributions from them and intervened personally when the kidney transplant program at University Medical Center — overseen by her husband’s medical practice — was threatened with closure by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)

But far from stonewalling, Berkley spoke to the Review-Journal’s Steve Tetreault for a story published the day after the Republican news release was issued, and she spoke with me on Monday.

In both instances, she said essentially the same thing: If she could do things differently, she’d have made fuller disclosure, but she’d do what she did no matter what.

“I had a huge choice to make on many of these issues,” Berkley said. “No matter what I did, somebody would think I was wrong.”

That includes me. I said in a Sept. 9 column that while it was acceptable for Berkley to vote on general legislation, her intervention in the UMC case was questionable because of the unique involvement of her husband’s practice.

“My primary concern was for the patients,” Berkley said. “You know I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself” if the program (Nevada’s only kidney transplant program) had shut down.

Berkley said she felt enough people knew about her husband’s involvement in UMC that further disclosure wasn’t required, even when she called the then-acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to pitch UMC’s case.

“I can’t imagine that they didn’t know,” she said.

But it’s entirely reasonable to assume a distant bureaucrat — who hasn’t been around to hear Berkley’s frequent references to “Dr. Larry” in speeches — might not make the connection. That’s why disclosure, at a minimum, is important.

Asked why she simply didn’t avoid the conflict — and the resulting negative publicity — by asking fellow Democratic Sen. Harry Reid to intervene on her behalf, Berkley responded with reference to her notorious work ethic: “I didn’t occur to me to call anybody. It only occurred to me to stand up for the people I represent.”

Although there’s been little in the way of political fallout from the Times story — no one has thus far requested the House Ethics Committee investigate the matter — Berkley is adamantly, absolutely clear on one point: She has not given any consideration of dropping her bid for the U.S. Senate against appointed incumbent Dean Heller next year.

“Absolutely not,” she said. “I am running for the U.S. Senate because nobody works harder than me.” She promises a vigorous race with stark contrasts, including over Medicare, which she accuses Heller of wanting to “kill.” (Heller voted twice for a budget plan by Rep. Paul Ryan, which would transform Medicare into a voucher-style plan for younger workers but leave it intact for current recipients.)

Other Nevada politicos say that while other viable candidates could step in if Berkley were to quit the race, there is no chatter to support such a move. Berkley retains the solid backing of Reid, who earlier this year put tremendous political pressure on would-be primary challenger Byron Georgiou to get out and given Berkley an untroubled run.

Longtime Democrat and R&R Partners chief Billy Vassiliadis sums up the mood: “I tend not to think too much about decisions that have already been made.” In other words, New York Times story or no, Berkley’s in for the long haul.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@ reviewjournal.com.