Pass a Gift-Ban Law With Bite : Ethics: Lax rules contributed to Mike Espy’s downfall.

Did some silly technicality bring down Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy?

No, the rules that he ran afoul of are plain and simple. If you work for the executive branch of government, you can’t take gifts from those you regulate. Espy took gifts from the food industry, and while there is no proof that he took the trips and sports tickets in exchange for more lenient treatment for that industry, he clearly violated the gift law.

How could one of the bright stars of this Administration, someone as politically astute as Espy, fail to obey the law?

Washington insiders offer numerous explanations for Espy’s actions. Unfortunately, all of them sound similar to a teen-ager’s explanation of why he got in trouble. Espy’s first line of defense was that stories about alleged wrongdoing were being spread by Republicans and others who did not want change in the Agriculture Department. This is often heard in households across America as the “bad guys in school set me up” routine.

When this explanation didn’t work and Espy paid back $7,600 of questionable gifts and expenses, he turned to another frequently heard explanation by acknowledging that he had been “careless with some of the details of (his) personal life.” This is better known as the “it’s no big deal, the teacher is just picky about details” excuse.

Or if that one didn’t fly, there is always “my friends let me down.” C. Manly Molpus, president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America and a friend of Espy, suggested that he should have been steered away from the unethical acts by his staff. Maybe they did and he just didn’t listen. Either way, a feeble excuse.

But the most provocative explanation was given by one former congressman: “It seems as though he behaved as though he was still a member (of Congress).” In teen-age lingo, this would be “Hey, what I did was OK at my old school; what’s the problem at the new one?”

This is exactly the problem. The rules regulating the behavior of members of Congress concerning gifts and other financial favors from lobbyists are weak and not effectively enforced.

Under the current House rules, Espy, in his first year in Congress, accepted $23,500 for 19 speeches and 22 expense-paid trips. Presumably some of those who paid for Espy’s talks and travel had business before Congress.

But finally some change in the cozy relationship between Congress and special interests is in sight.

Last week the House voted to reform the lobby-disclosure laws and to significantly limit the gifts and other financial favors members and their staffs may receive. That would end the popular golf and hunting trips and much of the wining and dining that legislators enjoy at lobbyists’ expense. Some loopholes remain, but as Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, the public-interest lobby, said, “It’s a major achievement in the fight to end the practice of special interests paying for the lifestyles of members of Congress.”

The last legislative roadblock should be cleared this week when the Senate votes on the bill. President Clinton is expected to sign the law, but it will be meaningless unless it is effectively interpreted and seriously enforced. While a new office in the White House will have some responsibility for enforcing the law, the congressional ethics committees have principal responsibility for enforcing the new gift ban provisions. Unfortunately, they do not have a strong track record when it comes to being tough on their own members.

Maybe, if they had, bright, energetic young leaders like Mike Espy would have taken the rules of his new office more seriously.