Stunned Democrats Less Sure Speaker Can Survive

Democrats were stunned Monday by the unanimous House Ethics Committee vote against Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), and some predicted that the panel’s unexpectedly strong findings will make it harder for him to remain in the nation’s third highest office.

“When I heard it was unanimous, I said, ‘Wow, this is a whole new ballgame,’ ” a leading Democrat remarked. His reaction was typical of the views of many of Wright’s allies--none of whom would be quoted by name--who as recently as last Thursday had expressed confidence that the Speaker could survive the scandal.

“The seriousness of this has escalated a few decibels,” the Democrat continued. “Last week, the feeling was that he can put on a fight. I don’t think that feeling is pervasive now. Some members are saying he may not survive.”

Nevertheless, neither Wright’s Democratic allies nor his critics on the Republican side were prepared to conclude with any certainty that the Speaker would be forced to step down as a result of the findings outlined in the committee’s 279-page report.

“I think the Speaker will remain as Speaker,” Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), the assistant majority leader, declared.

There was a widespread feeling among House members that they had entered uncharted political territory because no Speaker had ever been cited for such violations.

“We are taking a wait-and-see attitude,” Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said.

The full House ultimately will sit in judgment of Wright if--as appears increasingly likely--the Ethics Committee recommends punishment. With many conservative Republicans already lined up against him and most Southern Democrats clearly in his corner, the decision rests with the uncommitted moderates in both parties.

Wright’s top advisers are known to believe that he could survive a mild letter of criticism but not a reprimand. Any punishment more serious than a letter--a reprimand, censure or expulsion--must be approved by the full House.

Many House members emphasized that the committee’s final verdict on Wright has not been rendered and it is still possible that the Speaker’s polished oratory can persuade committee members he is guilty of nothing more than poor judgment.

Committee members noted that “a higher standard of proof” is required for them to recommend a reprimand.

Had Expected Tie Vote

What made the committee’s report so surprising was that many Democrats had expected the 12-member panel, which is divided evenly along party lines, to simply split 6 to 6 on the crucial issues raised by Wright’s GOP accuser, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Virtually no one outside of the committee was prepared for a unanimous vote.

In addition, the committee’s unanimous report appeared to dispel much of what one member described as the “fear factor”--concern expressed by members of both parties last week that the Wright case might ultimately come back to haunt them by setting a higher standard of conduct. In the report, the committee carefully justified each of its findings on the basis of precedent.

For example, the panel found “no record of any work product” by Wright’s wife, Betty, in exchange for the $18,000-a-year salary that she received from Mallightco--a business partnership between the Wrights and a wealthy friend, George A. Mallick Jr. As a result, the panel concluded that this salary was a gift to the Wrights from Mallick.

One Democrat, who also asked not to be identified, said that these findings were received with obvious relief by many members whose spouses are salaried workers. “Most members’ spouses really work,” he said. “I don’t know any other spouses who, if they work, don’t put in the time. Many members will say: ‘This is not the same as my spouse.’ ”

‘Not a Feminist Issue’

Another Democrat added that the issue of Mrs. Wright’s right to have an independent career had been over-dramatized by the Speaker in an effort to win sympathy for his wife. “It is not a feminist issue, and I think most members will see that when they read the report,” he said.

Likewise, some members who read the report were less concerned that their own financial relationships with hometown friends such as Mallick might also be judged to be in violation of House rules. The committee charged that Mallightco “was designed and used to give cash to the Wrights, and not as a legitimate business venture for both families.”

Wright’s advisers have suggested that he might choose to plea-bargain with the committee, offering to pay fines and make restitution in exchange for a mildly worded letter of criticism. But Wright has given no indication that he intends to do anything less than fight each charge, beginning with a speech to the Democratic caucus today.

Some Wright supporters said that a plea-bargain would constitute a defeat for him.

Encouraged by Silence

As expected, most House members were reluctant to make a judgment about Wright’s guilt or innocence immediately after the report was released, and Wright’s supporters were encouraged by their silence. “They are concerned, but their concern has not materialized into opposition,” a House Democratic leadership aide noted.

A statement by Rep. Mike Synar (R-Okla.) was typical of those made by Democrats willing to speak for the record.

“I think both sides are going to reserve judgment for now, because there’s a lot of respect for the Ethics Committee and its deliberations,” he said. “I didn’t see anything coming out today that didn’t tell me I shouldn’t be more patient. There’s very much a wait-and-see attitude around here.”

It appeared that these Democrats were waiting to see how their constituents would react.

“We’ll be opening our mail for a while,” Rep. Pat Williams (D-Mont.) commented. And Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S. C.) added: “If the Speaker is well received in the country and what he says is resonant with the American public, he improves his chances.”

Most Republicans were equally circumspect, fearing that any overheated GOP statements at this juncture might anger the committee and undermine the bipartisan nature of the charges.

“The process is not over,” Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) said. “There has been no determination of guilt. There have been no sanctions or penalties imposed.”

Some Republicans, such as Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania, clearly did not agree with Michel’s strategy. Walker, a staunch conservative with a well-earned reputation for partisanship, called on the Speaker to step down while the charges are being reviewed.

“This has been a preliminary inquiry,” said Rep. John T. Myers (R-Ind.), the senior Republican on the ethics panel. “At this point, the Speaker must be considered innocent of all charges unless proven otherwise. The Speaker has only been charged at this point.”

Not a Partisan Matter

Another Republican, Rep. Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, said that the committee vote demonstrated once and for all that the investigation is not a partisan matter.

“It destroys the charge once and for all that this is a political witch hunt and an effort to gain revenge for the trashing of Sen. (John) Tower,” he said, referring to the rejection of President Bush’s first defense secretary nominee. “None of that applies now.”

On the other side of the aisle, the most partisan statements were made by Wright loyalists in the Texas delegation, such as Democratic Reps. Jack Brooks, Charles Wilson and Martin Frost.

“They’ve got no facts,” Brooks stormed. “You would have thought that he had shot two nuns in church.”

Staff writers Josh Getlin and Melissa Healy contributed to this story.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HOUSE SPEAKER

COUNT ONE--The record indicates that in each of seven instances, Rep. Wright received income denominated as royalty (based on a royalty of 55% of book price) from the sales of books, such sales having been arranged in lieu of traditional honoraria compensation for speeches. The committee has reason to believe that the subject book sales were intended to avoid the limitations of law and House rules on the reporting and receipt of outside earned income, honoraria, and gifts. An eighth instance alleging an undisclosed gift is also described.

1984--Wright gave a speech at Southwest Texas State University for which he received a $3,000 honorarium check. Subsequent to receipt of the honorarium, university officials were asked whether they wished to receive books from Wright, who had reached the 30% annual limit on outside earned income. Arrangements were made for the school to receive $3,000 worth of the book, “Reflections of a Public Man.” Wright received the check and endorsed it to Madison Publishing. By so doing, Wright received $1,650 (the 55% royalty proceeds) as royalty income in lieu of the $3,000 honorarium.

1985--(1) A $2,000 check from the National Assn. of Realtors, which heard Wright speak, noted the payment was for the congressman’s honorarium. This check was voided and a second $2,000 check was issued for the purpose of buying multiple copies of the congressman’s book.

(2) When Wright spoke to the law firm of Hamel & Park, it was suggested that, in lieu of the honorarium which the firm indicated it was willing to pay, it should purchase $2,000 worth of Wright’s book. The firm made the book purchase as suggested.

(3) Correspondence arranging the congressman’s appearance before Van Liew Capital clients specified a $2,000 honorarium. Instead, the firm was asked to buy $2,000 worth of the book, and did so.

(4) A $2,000 honorarium was offered by Ocean Spray Massachusetts Growers for a speech, but it was suggested that, instead, Ocean Spray buy copies of the congressman’s book. Since the honorarium check had already been issued, a second check was prepared to effect the book purchase. In addition, it was agreed that Ocean Spray would not receive any books, but, rather, Wright would distribute them.

1986--(1) The Fertilizer Institute purchased $2,023 worth of the book in return for a speech.

(2) In conjunction with Wright’s speech to Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Assn.’s annual meeting, the record indicates that it was suggested that Mid-Continent purchase $1,000 worth of his book. Mid-Continent did not receive all the books it purchased but, rather, left distribution of most of the copies up to the congressman.

1987--S. Gene Payte, a Ft. Worth, Tex., real estate developer, offered a $5,000 gift to Wright but his check was returned by the congressman. Later, Payte contributed $5,000 for revision and distribution of Wright’s book. Payte still later wrote an additional $1,000 check, but the book was never revised. Payte received 300 to 500 copies of the original book.

COUNT TWO--The alleged violations arise as a result of Rep. and Mrs. Wright’s relationship with Mr. and Mrs. George Mallick, the two couples’ joint ownership of an investment corporation known as Mallightco Inc., and Mrs. Wright’s purported employment association with the corporation.

The record indicates that from 1979 through 1984, the Wrights were provided free housing in two apartments in Ft. Worth. Particularly with respect to the Wrights’ use of an apartment during 1980 through 1984, such use was arranged by George Mallick but not as part of Mrs. Wright’s compensation from Mallightco Inc. The committee has reason to believe that Mr. Mallick is an individual with a direct interest in legislation.

The committee listed the value of the free housing at $31,698 and said Wright had failed to report this on his financial disclosure statements and appears to have violated a House rule that imposes a limit of $100 on gifts received from persons with a direct interest in legislation.

COUNT THREE--Similar to Count Two, this allegation deals with use of a Ft. Worth apartment-townhouse from 1985 through 1988. The Wrights paid only for days they used the lodgings even though they kept their belongings there at all times, the count states. It says that use of the apartment-townhouse amounts to a gift of $21,790 from Mallick to the Wrights.

COUNT FOUR--The alleged violations arise as a result of Rep. and Mrs. Wright’s relationship with Mr. and Mrs. George Mallick, the two couples’ joint ownership of an investment corporation known as Mallightco Inc., and Mrs. Wright’s purported employment association with the corporation. The record indicates that during the period 1981 through 1984, Mrs. Wright received a total of $72,000 ($18,000 a year) in compensation as an employee of Mallightco Inc. During this four-year period, there was no evidence either supporting or establishing that the money paid to Mrs. Wright was in return for identifiable services or work products that she provided to Mallightco Inc. Accordingly, the committee has reason to believe that the compensation paid to Mrs. Wright was a gift from Mallick, who was in charge of the corporation.

COUNT FIVE--This count deals with the free use (valued at $19,391.65) by Mrs. Wright of a 1979 Cadillac Seville, including maintenance and operating costs (insurance, registration and repair), from 1983 through 1988 “assertedly” by virtue of her employment by Mallightco Inc. The record further indicates that Mrs. Wright’s employment terminated on Dec. 31, 1984, and that her use of the vehicle subsequent to 1984 could not be predicated upon an employment association with the corporation.

Finally, the record indicates that the automobile was located in Washington beginning in 1983 and that the records of Mallightco Inc. began referring to the Cadillac as Mrs. Wright’s car. There is no evidence indicating that Mrs. Wright’s use of the vehicle in Washington, D.C., was necessary since the corporation’s business headquarters were located in Ft. Worth, and there is no record supporting or establishing that she performed any duties for Mallightco in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Wright’s use of the vehicle was arranged by Mr. Mallick, an individual who the committee believes has a direct interest in legislation.