TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/050189/05018900.042

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 8.1 KB | 154 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 33

Bombshell in the House


A bipartisan indictment gravely damages Speaker Wright's
chances of survival


    The surprise was not in the tone of the document: it had
been widely tipped to be "devastating," and it was. The charges
for the most part had also been well rehearsed. Nonetheless,
when the House ethics committee at last released its report on
Speaker Jim Wright, the findings of the ten-month investigation
still qualified as a bombshell. Bad enough were the accumulated
allegations of venality: details of Betty Wright's alleged
no-show job, accounts of the Speaker's staff shamelessly
peddling his book, the description of a wildly lucrative -- and
suspicious -- oil-well deal that few had known about before.
More important, and more ominous for Wright, was the fact that
all six Democrats on the committee joined the six Republicans
in finding "reason to believe" that the Speaker had violated
House ethics rules by failing to avoid "even the appearance of
impropriety."

    That unanimity crippled efforts by Wright and his allies to
portray the report as a partisan Republican attempt to smear a
powerful political opponent, and it tilted the odds against the
Speaker. Only a few weeks ago, Wright had seemed likely to hold
on to his job. Now close observers of Congress, such as
lobbyists and Democratic powers outside the legislative chamber,
think the best he can expect is to retain the speakership until
late in the year, before being pushed into resignation. House
Republican Whip Newt Gingrich, who first called for the Wright
investigation, went even further, predicting that Wright would
become such an embarrassment for the Democrats that Majority
Leader Tom Foley of Washington "will be Speaker by June."

    Wright, to be sure, would have none of that. On occasion
during the week he looked haggard, and he told reporters wryly,
"I believe I have had easier times." But he made himself
conspicuous, bustling about the halls of Congress and on at
least two occasions visiting the White House, most of the time
wearing a defiant grin; like many politicians, he can smile on
cue, whatever his inner feelings. He emerged from a closed
meeting of the Democratic Caucus to report, "I told them I
intend to fight and I intend to win." He renewed a demand that
the ethics committee call a hearing at which he could state his
case publicly (Wright and attorney William Oldaker have already
appeared before the committee in private).

    Wright is not without ammunition for this battle, though
his defense is in part technical and legalistic. Having found
"reason to believe" that House rules were violated, the
congressional equivalent of an indictment, the ethics committee
must now judge whether there is "clear and convincing evidence"
of the violations. In a couple of cases, the situation remains
murky. One question, for example, is whether Fort Worth
businessman George Mallick, who showered gifts on Wright and his
wife, had a "direct interest" in legislation. If he did not,
then Wright's acceptance of the gifts was no violation of House
rules.

    Committee counsel Richard Phelan insisted that Mallick did
have such an interest, if only because his extensive oil and
real estate holdings made him much more vulnerable to any change
in tax laws than the ordinary American. But Mallick does not
meet three standard tests of direct interest: he is not a
lobbyist, he employs no lobbyists, and he does not have a
political-action committee. By the standard of interest that the
ethics committee seems to be applying to Mallick, says one
member of Congress, "I couldn't talk to my own mother. She's 65,
and on Social Security."

    The Speaker also sought to make some headway by
concentrating his defense not on himself but on his wife Betty.
The committee charged that Betty was paid $18,000 a year by
Mallick for doing no work. Wright indignantly defended his
wife's integrity and insisted she did work as an investment
adviser; he produced a list of proposed investments she had
supposedly looked into for Mallick. Mallick seems never to have
acted on any, but Betty explained to the Washington Post that
her advice frequently had been not to buy. To the New York Times
she complained that "they are making me a Nancy Reagan . . . I
am being accused of changing (Wright's) life not for the better
but for the worse."

    Attorney Oldaker concedes that there is no written proof
that Betty ever did anything: no memos written by or to her, no
memos written by others in which she is mentioned, no indication
that she worked in Mallick's offices more than five to seven
days a month. Even so, Wright's defense may win the sympathy of
many of the 300-odd members of Congress whose wives or husbands
also hold paid jobs. They are not at all eager to set a
precedent that might encourage future investigators to ask
exactly what it is their spouses do and what interest in
legislation the spouses' bosses may have.

    Wright may have more trouble defending himself against
charges relating to bulk sales of his nonbook Reflections of a
Public Man (it consists mainly of speech excerpts slapped
together by an aide). On the surface, at least, the sales look
like a blatant attempt to slide around House limits on members'
outside income; honorariums for speeches are restricted, but
book royalties are not. In several cases Wright's staff members
pointed out that the Speaker was near his limit on honorariums
and suggested that organizations buy books instead of paying him
directly. Wright refused to answer any questions about the book
last week; if he or Oldaker has a plausible explanation, neither
has come forward with it.

    Moreover, the case against Wright may still be building.
The committee last week dispatched two investigators to Texas
to look further into an oil-well sale involving Wright. The
story: Mallick and the Wrights were fifty-fifty partners in an
investment company called Mallightco, but in 1987 Wright
instructed the trustee of his blind trust to sell out. Mallick
told the committee that he wanted to "bet the farm" on one more
deal before the pullout.

    Mallightco bought a 4% interest in an oil-and-gas well
known as Sabine Lake Prospect for $9,120. On the very day the
purchase became final -- May 10, 1988 -- Mallightco resold the
interest to Union Rheinische Petroleum Inc., a West German
company, for $440,000. The well at the time showed some prospect
of becoming a commercial producer but has since been plugged.
Wright's trustee then sold the Speaker's interest in Mallightco
for $350,000, less $80,000 to pay off debts to the firm -- a
handsome profit from a hopeless dry hole. Wright insists he knew
nothing about the well deal, but the ethics committee wants to
probe deeper -- especially because the sale of the well was in
part arranged by Morris Jaffe and his son Doug, two Texans who
are trying to sell a $3 billion training-aircraft system to the
Pentagon.

    So far, most Congressmen detect no great excitement among
their constituents about the Wright investigation. But the
longer the affair drags on, and the more heavily the press and
television focus on eventual public hearings, the more likely
voters are to pay unfavorable attention. "This is no ten-kiloton
violation," says Ted Van Dyk, a noted Washington political
consultant. "But it's hard to convince the folks at home after
Meese, Tower, Hart et al."

    The betting now among relatively impartial experts is that
the full House will eventually vote on some kind of sanction
against Wright. They also expect the ballot will be very close.
If that is the case, whether Wright wins or loses becomes almost
irrelevant; either way, his effectiveness as Speaker would be
undermined. Like Ed Meese, he would probably hang on to his job
for a while for appearances' sake, then quietly resign (no one
expects him to leave the House). The Speaker still has time to
turn that glum scenario around, but he will have to mount a more
convincing defense than any he has been able to produce to date.