Donors Sought to Benefit, Clinton Says

President Clinton acknowledged Friday that some large Democratic campaign contributors with foreign connections may be motivated by hopes of using a relationship with the White House to enhance their standing in their own countries, while others may expect a boost for their U.S. business interests.

Answering questions at a press conference about the growing controversy over foreign campaign contributions, Clinton conceded that some money was accepted illegally by his party and said that some other contributions, although legal, were improper.

It was the first time Clinton publicly has addressed the issue of whether large Democratic donors who enjoyed frequent visits to the White House attempted to benefit from such access.

Previously, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry had said the president understood that contributors such as James Riady, the scion of a wealthy Indonesian family, would seek to use Oval Office conversations with the president on Asia trade policy to boost their stature abroad.

*

The president’s comments came after recent disclosures of a series of White House meetings with Asian American entrepreneurs who had contributed heavily to the Democratic National Committee. For instance, Johnny Chien Chuen Chung, a Torrance businessman who donated $366,000, visited the White House at least 49 times between early 1994 and June of this year, using snapshots taken there to enhance his business interests in Asia.

Asked Friday to assess the objectives of the contributors, Clinton said that some “think maybe it may enhance their standing in their own countries. Sometimes they may think that it’s something they ought to do because they have business operations in America.”

He emphasized that legal immigrants have the same right to contribute to campaigns as U.S. citizens. But as he did late in his reelection campaign, he urged Congress to outlaw campaign contributions by noncitizens, whether U.S. residents or not.

“What you see here is too much money being raised, raising too many questions,” Clinton said. “The Democratic Party should . . . evaluate what’s done, make sure its house is clean, and should live within the rules.”

But until the rules are reformed, he added, “there will always be questions raised, even when their contributions are perfectly legal.”

On other topics, Clinton:

* Said he is prepared to work with Congress to enact legislation outlawing most late-term abortions, but mounted an emotional defense of his veto of the so-called partial-birth abortion bill earlier this year. As he did at the time of his veto, he said the procedure was often the only way to protect the mother’s health and assure her continued ability to bear children.

* Outlined a seemingly noncontroversial role as advocate for international human rights for his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, during the second term. He said that the first lady would “undertake more efforts around the world . . , speaking out on behalf of the human rights dimensions of women and young girls.”

* Conceded that he will have to make some “tough decisions” in preparing the budget he will send to Capitol Hill early next year, but said he wants to allocate several billion dollars to cushion the impact of the new Welfare Reform Act, helping recipients find jobs and easing restrictions on legal immigrants. He also said he does not want to cut funding for home heating oil subsidies this winter.

* Complained that appointees to the Cabinet and other top government posts are subjected to such intense scrutiny that many highly qualified candidates refuse to serve. Just this week, questions have arisen over the stock dealings of CIA Director-designate Anthony Lake and incoming National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger.

Both failed to immediately sell energy stocks at the request of the White House after they joined the administration four years ago. The Justice Department is investigating for possible conflict of interest.

*

The “partial-birth abortion” issue provoked Clinton’s most animated response. He said he is appalled by the “partial-birth abortion” procedure and would “happily sign” legislation outlawing it, provided an exception was made for women facing severe damage to their health.

“This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue,” he said. “To me, this is a practical problem. I believe that people put in that situation ought not to have Congress tell them that they’re never going to be able to have children again.”