Word is that Kent Conrad is telling reporters that he didn’t disclose his million-dollar Delaware vacation home because the law doesn’t require him to.  He says that he discloses his Washington DC Townhouse because he makes income from renting out the basement, and he discloses the North Dakota apartment building he claims as his “residence” for election law purposes because the other apartments he rents out generate income.

He says the vacation home doesn’t earn him any income so he doesn’t disclose it.

Speaking from a strictly legal standpoint this does appear to be true (though I’ll admit to being no expert on this facet of law).  But from a pragmatic viewpoint...c’mon.  Seriously now.

Anyone who owns a second piece of property that isn’t their primary home - such as a lake cabin or a rental property - knows that such assets are classified as “investment properties” for tax and mortgage purposes.  Kent Conrad may not be renting out his vacation home for profit, but certainly it’s a significant investment asset that should be disclosed just as his investments in the stock market are disclosed.

Further, the idea that Conrad can purchase a million dollar vacation home with a loan secured with special, money-saving considerations from a lending company CEO and all-around political operative without it needing to be disclosed is appalling.  If such a transaction is required to be disclosed under the law, it should be.

And certainly that such a disclosure doesn’t appear to be required under current law is no exoneration of Conrad’s behavior, though no doubt that’s how the North Dakota media will spin it.