Senate Stunned as Regret Gives Way to Rebuttal

It was not exactly a plea bargain gone awry, but it was close.

Sen. Alan Cranston had advised the Senate Ethics Committee in advance and in writing that he would accept its reprimand and, when he arose on the floor just after 3 p.m. Wednesday, his first words were indeed of remorse.

He was not proud of the moment, he said. He regretted the pain that “all this” had caused his family, friends, supporters and constituents. He began to speak without his lapel microphone. When he started over, he read carefully from his prepared text, using a lectern placed on his customary desk in the center of the ornate Senate chamber.

And it was undoubtedly the low point of Cranston’s career as a public man, having heard himself excoriated by an Ethics Committee resolution finding that his conduct in his dealings with Charles H. Keating Jr. and Lincoln Savings & Loan had “violated established norms of behavior in the Senate.”

But, after he put aside his first page, Cranston launched into a bitter rebuttal of the committee that stunned fellow senators, who were already uncomfortable at being part of the spectacle and had expected him to accept the reprimand without a counterattack.

Some thumbed through the fat committee report. Some stared deep into the chamber’s plush blue carpet. A few ducked out for air.

The former Democratic whip not only fired back at the committee, but also pointedly accused unnamed colleagues of doing the same thing he admitted having done--allowing the appearance of linking political favors to campaign contributions.

It was the kind of thing that gives gooseflesh to politicians from county road boards to the White House: public talk about the gossamer threads that entangle money and political access.

He had “abundant evidence,” he said, “to demonstrate to the Senate and to the nation, through example after example of comparable conduct, that my behavior did not violate established norms.”

He would not name names but he warned that others could also be vulnerable to being singled out, as he said he had been.

“How many of you,” he asked, “could stand up and declare you’ve never, ever decided to see or take a call from someone whose name you recognize, be it a friend, a prominent leader in your state or in the nation, a volunteer in your campaigns or a contributor, while asking your staff to tend to someone you don’t recognize?”

“I doubt that any of you could do so.

“Furthermore, you and I know that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and the White House stage events where lobbyists and other individuals paying $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, or even $100,000 a year can mingle with the President, the Vice President, Cabinet members and senators. The more they contribute, the more exclusive and intimate the event. That’s access.”

After his angry finger-pointing, Cranston characteristically struck out for high ground with a call for reform, namely public financing of political campaigns. And he indirectly appealed for sympathy, twice noting that he is suffering from cancer.

It was a visibly difficult moment for one of the barons of Senate Democrats, a man who, throughout 22 years in Washington, has been most comfortable dealing with matters of arms control, the environment and human rights.

It could have been worse. His agreement to accept the harsh judgment spared him the pain of having the full Senate vote to approve the findings and the ultimate humiliation of standing before them to be ceremonially reprimanded.

And while Cranston completed his case, still bristling at being singled out, committee members suggested that, to the contrary, he had been given special consideration.

“Members of the committee considered the state of Sen. Cranston’s health and the fact that he will not seek reelection to the Senate in reaching a conclusion as to the appropriate sanction in this case,” Ethics Committee Chairman Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) said. “For some members of the committee, his age was also considered, as well as his remarkable record of service to this nation over the last 23 years.”

In the end, the sympathy for Cranston was mixed with seething anger for his assault on the findings that he had promised to accept.

A furious Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) followed his denunciation of Cranston’s performance as “arrogant,” “unrepentant,” and “unworthy,” with a vow to present senators with further information to back up the committee’s conclusion. And there were Republican murmurings that the decision to let the California senator off without a vote by the full Senate should be reconsidered.

But after Rudman’s final blast, Heflin was asked from the chair “whether this does complete the investigation of Sen. Cranston.”

Heflin replied with finality: “Yes, it does.”

The long slide of the powerful California Democrat had bottomed out, nearly five years after Cranston first contacted the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of Lincoln Savings. As Cranston gathered the papers around his desk, several Democrats--Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, Max Baucus of Montana, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York--stopped by to shake his hand. Among them was one Republican--Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming.

As those senators joined the rest of the Senate heading out side exits of the chamber, Cranston walked out a back exit with his press secretary, Murray Flander, and his lawyer, Harvard professor Alan M. Dershowitz.

HEARING EXCERPTS: A24-26