
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, August 9, 1995                   TAG: 9508090042
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JOHN S. KOEHLER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

NO POLITICAL AGENDA? COME OFF IT . . .

IN PETER L. Via's Aug. 5 letter to the editor, ``Look who's crying foul about big campaign contributions,'' he endeavored to shift attention given to large donations - made by him and his brother to House of Delegates candidates Newell Falkinburg and Trixie Averill - away from the central issue. That is: the Vias' attempt to conceal their donations by funneling the money through Gov. George Allen's political-action committee. Via implies that Virginia's lack of proper campaign-finance regulation justified their actions.

Contrary to his assertion, the contributions weren't ``entirely a matter of public record and fair comment.'' The brothers initially attempted to cloak their agenda behind a screen, seeking to influence the political process in the same manner that Via, without specific proof, alleges will be used by donors to Dels. Chip Woodrum and Dick Cranwell. Only when this attempt failed, thwarted by campaign-finance regulation, did the Vias make their contributions matters of public record.

While Virginia clearly needs further campaign-finance reform, the Vias cannot shield criticism of their actions with claims that they're merely leveling the playing field for nonincumbents, and have no special interest to curry favor for. Another story in your newspaper (Aug. 4, ``Via donation helps Gilmore raise $297,577'') notes that they have also made large contributions to Attorney General Jim Gilmore this year. Gilmore isn't presently seeking a public office, at least not officially. Therefore, a large contribution to his campaign fund suggests some motive beyond a laudable interest in competitive politics.

There's nothing new in Via's defense. It's a tactic used by contributors to both parties: First, assert that the contribution is proper simply because it's legal. Second, deny that any return is expected. Third, accuse the opposition of equal or greater transgressions.

The fallacy of Via's defense is equally clear and familiar. The initial effort to contribute was far from proper or legal. Accepting for the moment that this was due to political naivete and a desire for privacy, it still taints the subsequent legal contributions. Moreover, the legality of a transaction isn't the standard by which its ethical dimensions should be measured.

The principal flaw in Via's argument that he and his brother lack an agenda which their contributions might serve to influence lies in the fact that he acknowledges being opposed to ``the narrow interest of the Democratic Party.'' He asserts that he and his brother are merely participating in ``the proper conduct of government.'' But it's disingenuous to assert that lavish support of a political cause, such as only wealthy individuals, corporations and lobbies can provide, occurs only as an altruistic act not intended to garner direct and tangible benefit for the giver.

The Vias have the right to support those candidates and promote those causes they believe are in their best interest. However, they cannot expect those with differing viewpoints not to criticize their position. Their wealth cannot purchase the privacy they so richly cherish if they also wish to use that wealth to influence the political process.

The Via family has long been a mainstay of cultural and charitable funding in the Roanoke Valley and beyond. For this altruism, they are to be commended. But if they believe that they can quietly enter the political arena under the guise of philanthropy and not find themselves subject to the critical inquiry inherent in that process, they're sadly mistaken.

John S. Koehler of Roanoke is a lawyer.

by CNB