Wright Allies Say He Is ‘Nouveau-McCarthyism’ Victim

Allies of embattled House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) began a public relations counteroffensive Thursday, charging that he is a victim of “nouveau McCarthyism” directed by the special counsel of the House Ethics Committee.

The allegation was made by George A. Mallick Jr., Wright’s chief benefactor and controversial Texas business partner, in a telephone interview with The Times.

Another backer of Wright’s, Ft. Worth printer Carlos Moore, accused the counsel, Chicago lawyer Richard J. Phelan, of acting like a tyrant and trying to prove deliberate wrongdoing where it had not occurred.

“McCarthy looks like a damn liberal compared to this guy,” Moore said in an interview.

Ethics Committee Chairman Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) and the panel’s ranking Republican member, Rep. John T. Myers of Indiana, however, again declared their confidence in the special counsel as they neared the end of a nine-month inquiry into Wright’s financial affairs.

Phelan, who directed the investigation that assembled evidence for the committee’s review, was not available for comment. He has refused to answer reporters’ questions in the past.

In another development, Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), a supporter of the Speaker, prepared to file a complaint with the ethics panel against Wright’s chief accuser, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Alexander said that he would seek an investigation of a $100,000 fund amassed from political supporters to promote a 1984 book by Gingrich.

Seek to Reduce Criticism

While such a move would not help Wright directly, his supporters apparently believe that it would reduce criticism of a controversial book contract held by the Speaker that is the center of one of the allegations against him. Wright’s contract for his 1984 book, “Reflections of a Public Man,” contained lucrative terms that so far have netted him more than $55,000 in royalties, partly from bulk sales to his political backers.

Critics have alleged that the contract allowed Wright to skirt House limits on outside income, which cover money from other sources such as speaking fees or direct payments.

Gingrich has insisted that there was nothing improper about his book-promotion fund and has promised to make public soon a detailed account of how the money was spent.

As the ethics panel deliberated behind closed doors, Wright’s backers voiced increasing optimism that its report expected next week would find any violations of House rules by the Speaker to have been inadvertent.

If so, pro-Wright Democrats added, the situation would be “manageable,” assuring that the Speaker would retain his leadership post. Wright has said that he would be willing to accept a letter of criticism from the panel if that would put the investigation behind him.

The committee is considering whether the complex financial relationships between Wright and Mallick over the last decade have violated House rules and whether the Speaker properly reported income from a business partnership with Mallick that only recently was dissolved. Mallick’s past employment of Wright’s wife, Betty, and his providing of a Ft. Worth apartment to the Wrights at a token rent of only $22 a day also have come under scrutiny.

The book publishing contract being examined was arranged between Wright and Moore, who received large sums for campaign printing from Wright.

Thursday Mallick reversed his previous low-profile stance in the matter and came out swinging at the panel’s chief investigator.

Criticism of Phelan

He charged that Phelan had prejudged the case against Wright and was stacking the evidence to cast the Speaker in the worst light, manipulating the 12 members of the committee in the process.

“As Phelan called in witnesses, he would focus on any point that was negative to the Speaker and brush over positive points,” Mallick said. “Then he took that information and framed it in the most negative light. He manipulated it. He took selective testimony.”

Phelan, he said, was trying to make a name for himself as other special counsels have in high-priority investigations. He cited Samuel Dash, chief majority counsel for the Senate Watergate investigation of Richard M. Nixon’s White House in 1973.

“He would like to be a Sam Dash--but he’s no Sam Dash,” Mallick added. “I was treated by Mr. Phelan very unfairly.”

Mallick, who has known Wright for 30 years, said he was speaking without checking first with the Speaker.

$1.2-Million Budget

As the panel adjourned Thursday, Dixon was asked about the backlash against Phelan, whose firm has received most of the $1.2 million already set aside for the investigation.

“I have absolute confidence in Mr. Phelan, and I think the committee also has confidence in the professional manner in which the Phelan firm has conducted itself since the inquiry began last June,” Dixon said.

Myers, the senior GOP member of the panel, said that Phelan was operating under the committee’s rules and added: “The counsel doesn’t tell us how to vote.”

While the panel does not expect to finish its deliberations this week, Dixon added, it will meet today, recess over the weekend and resume work Tuesday.

“I’m optimistic we can reach some conclusions next week,” Dixon said.

Staff writer J. Michael Kennedy in Ft. Worth contributed to this story.