Jon Ralston on the dubious claim made by Team Venetian that invitations to Macau were mistakenly sent to elected officials

Sunday, Aug. 26, 2007 | 1:04 a.m.

Talk about a letdown.

Imagine you are an elected official and you get a spectacular invitation from the third richest man in the country inviting you to jet to the Far East, sit down to a gratis dinner, enjoy a free suite and party at the celebration of the opening of a beautiful resort.

And then, just days later, you get a form letter from a lawyer for the third richest man in the country that essentially says: Nevermind.

Gondolier Numero Uno Sheldon Adelson, a multibillionaire, giveth to the political elite and then he just as quickly taketh away? I suppose the richer they are ...

That's what happened this month, though, as a slew of elected officials, mostly lawmakers and some local government types, were invited to the grand opening of the Venetian Macau and then just as quickly uninvited.

When I first learned of the proposed junket and disclosed it almost two weeks ago, I pointed out that the invitations with the comps were personalized with the elected officials' names and a "personal access" number to enter into a Web site to make arrangements. But before I could raise more questions about the propriety of the freebie, the Venetian folks immediately claimed a "clerical error" had been made and, a spokesman asserted, "There was an error in the mailing lists and Elected Officials received the incorrect invitations. Letters are being sent out immediately to make it very clear that Elected Officials receive no complimentary services."

This explanation seemed lame nearly a fortnight ago. But now that elected officials have received their "unvite," the company has twisted itself into a rhetorical pretzel trying to insist the elected folks were never supposed to be comped.

The original invitation came to the pols by DHL messenger from Adelson and his wife, Miriam, and was encased in a leather pouch. The "unvite" was faxed by a lawyer.

"Recently, you may have received by mistake a package inviting you to attend the opening of the Venetian Macao Resort Hotel in Macao," the missive from Venetian Vice President and General Counsel Frederick H. Kraus begins. Because of this "mistake," Kraus writes, "we wanted to bring to your attention some important details regarding the event." And what might those important details be?

"The invitation that you received was intended to be sent only to private citizens," Kraus goes on. "The invitation was mistakenly sent to elected and public officials and, therefore, should not be interpreted as an offer of complimentary services."

A lawyer and a comedian?

So these invitations, personalized to the point of titles and a private access code, were not meant for the elected officials but for private citizens? That certainly is credible - if you have a double-digit IQ.

But Kraus can't stop there: "In the case of elected or public officials, there are certain ethics rules that pertain to these types of activities. As you know, the laws of many jurisdictions do not allow us the opportunity to offer, or you the opportunity to accept, complimentary services. We take these rules seriously and wanted to bring them to your attention."

So a lawyer for the third-richest man in the country, who once tried to erase three county commissioners by using the state GOP as a conduit for a small fortune in campaign cash and who persuaded (by proxy at least) a governor whose campaign he helped finance to be a conduit for a grudge against the convention authority, is giving elected officials a primer on ethics? That is funny.

But what is no joke is that this junket probably would not have violated any of this state's mushy ethics laws. The lawmakers would have been required to report it as a gift. But would it have been illegal? I don't think so.

Kraus finishes with a flourish: "We apologize for any inconvenience that this mistake may have caused you. However, we are confident that you share our desire to make sure that the invitations and activities comply with all applicable ethics rules and laws. Thank you for your understanding on this matter."

I doubt many of the elected officials are going to be very understanding. They either never had any intention of going or are furious that their chance for a Venetian-sponsored vacation has been lost.

One little question nags at me, though: The original explanation indicated that elected officials received "the incorrect invitations." If the correct ones exist, why didn't The Venetian then send those to the politicians?

Maybe those went to the private citizens. By mistake.