Dean's Address

Notwithstanding any biases, preconceived notions, and personal experiences, each Committee member now had to judge one of their own on the fact‑driven report. These congressmen, who almost always act collectively, now had to act individually. They had to look into their conscience, their experience, and decide whether the facts mandated the violations we described in our report. In performing this awesome task, they had to set aside their fears of retribution should their indictment fail or be overturned by the full House, a very real risk.

Following these oral arguments, the Committee began its deliberations. The Committee first decided to release our report to the public regardless of their ruling, to record and publish the individual votes of the members, and to vote on individual violations. The Committee deliberated for almost three weeks before deciding that the Speaker had violated the House rules on 69 occasions.

Hence, on April 13, 1989, the Ethics Committee publicly announced that by a vote of 12‑0, the committee's 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans had found that the Speaker has violated the rules 69 times. They specifically found that there was reason to believe that the Speaker had received improper gifts from a person with a direct interest in legislation, that he had failed to report the same, that he had schemed through sales of his book Reflections of a Public Man to evade the limits placed on outside income, and that he had failed to report that income as honoraria.

The Ethics Committee chose not to pursue our determination that Mr. Wright had also violated House rules with respect to certain oil wells and his interventions with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of several savings and loan officials. Since then, the Senate has taken a harder look at similar Bank Board interventions by five Senators now known as the "Keating Five."

Following televised hearings on the legal sufficiency of the above charges, Mr. Wright announced his intention to resign his speakership and his seat. On June 30, Mr. Wright walked out of the Capitol where he had served for 34 years. He was the first Speaker in the history of the United States forced to resign his speakership.

Stripped to their essence, the various charges against Speaker Wright revealed a common core: by willingly accepting gifts and favors from friends and contributors, he subjected himself to improper influence. Similar charges now confront five respected Senators in relation to their efforts in aiding a failing savings and loan: a savings and loan controlled by a generous contributor to their campaigns.

Was the Wright affair just another political tragedy? A confirmation in the public that "political ethics" in an oxymoron? Or, as with Watergate, do the questions raised by Jim Wright's rise and fall portend a new and characteristically different spirit of ethical responsibility? One that makes elected officials more than mere politicians as lawyers are more than mere scriveners?

Late last year, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 in a package that included pay raises for Congress and executive branch officials. The Act eliminates honoraria for House members at the end of this year. Although Senators kept their honoraria, they decreased the limit on such income to $23,586 from $35,800.

For the first time, the Act limits the acceptance of gifts from non-family members, regardless of whether the gift giver has an interest in legislation. As the Wright investigation proved, determining who has an interest in legislation can be a difficult task. On the other hand, does anyone really believe that wealthy individuals or corporations would give large gifts to a congressman and not expect anything in return? By banning all such gifts from non‑family members, we no longer must ponder the reasons for such graciousness.

The Act also limits the acceptance of personal hospitality from any single source to 30 days in any calendar year. It also imposes an affirmative obligation on the Member to make a "documentable effort" to ascertain that the personal hospitality qualifies as an exempt gift where the Member accepts such hospitality for more than 4 days or 3 nights.

In one lessening of the rules, the Act now permits spouses or other family members to accompany the Congressman on qualified trips paid by private sponsors.

Do the new rules go far enough? Not quite. Although it is now illegal for generous "friends" to give gifts to their favorite representative, these same friends may still organize and contribute to Political Action committees and Independent Expenditure Committees.

Continue to Page 4