Senate Panel Revives Case Against Cranston : Ethics: Dramatic reversal is related to criticism that the Thomas confirmation process was mishandled.

Stung by criticism that the Senate mishandled the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, members of the Senate Ethics Committee decided Thursday that they no longer want to drop charges of ethical misconduct against Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.).

The committee’s dramatic reversal increases the likelihood that the panel will vote soon to recommend some form of reprimand for the 76-year-old California senator and perhaps force him to endure a humiliating trial by the full Senate near the end of his 24-year career.

Cranston, who plans to retire at the end of 1992, has been under investigation by the Ethics Committee for two years on charges that he improperly intervened with federal regulators on behalf of Irvine-based Lincoln Savings & Loan while soliciting nearly $1 million in contributions from its owner, Charles H. Keating Jr.

Cranston has vigorously denied committing any improprieties and on Thursday declined to comment on the committee’s decision.

Just two weeks ago, the six-member ethics panel appeared hopelessly divided along partisan lines in the case, with three Republican members advocating a full Senate hearing for Cranston and three Democrats opposing it. At that time, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who was frustrated by the impasse, let it be known that he intended to ask the committee to declare a stalemate and drop the charges.

But by the time the panel finally met behind closed doors Thursday, Lott had decided against offering a resolution to drop the charges. Instead, he argued that in the wake of the criticism the Senate received for its handling of the Thomas case, it could no longer risk being chastised for failing to resolve the two-year investigation of Cranston.

After the meeting broke up, Lott told reporters that all members of the Ethics Committee had agreed with him and that the panel had made “a renewed commitment to try to find a resolution that a majority of us can vote for.”

This unexpected shift in Cranston’s fate was further evidence that last weekend’s gut-wrenching, televised hearings airing charges of sexual harassment against Thomas have had a profound impact on virtually every other aspect of political life in Washington.

“The world has changed,” said Lott. “Things are different. . . . For the committee to say that we can’t do anything (on the Cranston case) would reflect (badly) on this institution.”

Last February, after three months of public hearings, the committee announced that it had found substantial evidence that Cranston violated Senate ethics rules in his dealings with Keating. At the same time, the panel closed its investigation of four other senators, who along with Cranston had collectively been known as the “Keating Five.”

One of the five, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said Thursday that he views the committee’s reversal on Cranston as a direct result of criticism that former Ethics Committee Chairman Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) received during the Thomas hearings. Although Sen. Terry Sanford (D-N.C.) has recently taken over the chairmanship of the Ethics Committee, Heflin, who as a member of the Judiciary Committee also sat in judgment of Thomas, is still serving as chairman of the panel in the Cranston matter.

In McCain’s judgment, Heflin now must demonstrate that he can bring the Cranston case to a satisfactory conclusion to blunt the attention that he has received for his exchanges with Thomas. Heflin’s sometimes confused, halting questions have been criticized by members of his own party and have been the subject of parodies by television comedians.

Common Cause, the self-styled citizens’ lobby that filed the original complaint against the five senators, has criticized the committee for failing to reprimand Sens. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.), as recommended by the panel’s special counsel, Robert S. Bennett. It also has criticized the panel for failing to act sooner in the Cranston case. Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) is the other senator investigated by the committee in the matter.

The Ethics Committee’s deliberations in the Cranston case have been delayed by several unforeseen developments, including a heart attack suffered by one panel member, Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.); the subsequent decision of Pryor’s replacement, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), to withdraw from the deliberations because his wife’s law firm had represented Cranston’s employees, and the eventual return of Pryor to the committee.

Throughout the deliberations, Republicans on the panel have insisted that Cranston’s case should be referred to the Senate floor for some form of reprimand, although the committee has never considered recommending Cranston’s expulsion.

But Democrats--including Heflin--have sided with Cranston, who contends that his conduct in the Keating case was no different than that of most senators when they accept campaign contributions from constituents who seek their assistance in matters involving the government.

Last summer, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), also a member of the committee, became so frustrated with the delays that he released his own findings, charging that Cranston had violated Senate rules.

In Cranston’s case, as in all such cases, the Ethics Committee has a wide variety of punishments for a member who is believed to have brought discredit to the Senate--everything from a mild letter of reprimand to the recommendation of expulsion from the Senate.

BACKGROUND

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) has been under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee for two years on charges that he improperly intervened with federal regulators on behalf of Irvine-based Lincoln Savings & Loan while soliciting nearly $1 million in contributions from its owner, Charles H. Keating Jr. The committee has closed its investigation of four other senators, who along with Cranston had been collectively known as the “Keating Five.” Cranston has announced that he plans to retire from the Senate at the end of 1992.