Questionable Fund-Raising Invites Complete Scrutiny

The day after President Clinton swept to his reelection victory, the Democratic National Committee decided it would be prudent to return a $325,000 campaign contribution to an Indian resident of the United States named Yogesh K. Gandhi. Not that there was anything illegal about the donation, insisted a DNC spokeswoman. But “after questions were raised by the Los Angeles Times we did our own investigation,” which confirmed that even though Gandhi appeared to be remarkably flush last May when he wrote his check to the DNC, by August he was swearing in small claims court that he had so little money in this country he couldn’t even give a former employee of his defunct foundation $3,046 in back pay.

The Gandhi contribution was solicited by John Huang, a former Commerce Department official and big-time DNC fund-raiser who, accompanied by various foreign friends, has been a frequent visitor to the White House. The donation is one of a number being investigated by the Federal Election Commission. In time, it could lead to the naming of an independent counsel to determine whether Clinton administration officials broke the law.

In the last six weeks the DNC has had to return more than an astonishing $700,000 in dubious or clearly illegal contributions. That includes, as this paper first reported, $250,000 that came directly--and illicitly--from a South Korean corporation. The DNC, as well as President Clinton, has turned away many relevant questions about these contributions and what they might have been intended to influence.

Can the DNC be charged with no more than laxity for failing to look closely enough at the sources of certain campaign contributions? Maybe. But maybe a lot more than just sloppy administration was involved.

Soon after the 105th Congress convenes in January, congressional Republicans can be expected to launch a legislative inquiry into what the DNC did. This is a fit subject for investigation. But any hearings will be tainted by the odor of partisan opportunism if they are limited to possible Democratic infractions. The immediate issue indeed is possible violations of campaign finance laws by one party whose questionable activities have been exposed. The larger issue is how money raising has become the obsessive imperative among all parties in our political process. Hearings that focus on the bigger picture would perform a true public service.