ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 TAG: 9701280065
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
NEWT GINGRICH'S rehabilitation has proved short-lived. Just days after being reprimanded by the House of Representatives and socked with an unprecedented $300,000 penalty for admitted ethical violations that "brought disgrace on the House," his talk of contrition and cooperation has ended abruptly.
Over the weekend, Gingrich returned to belittling his own wrongdoing and blaming his woes on others - his lawyers, liberal news organizations, "the left" and other enemies. Talk about evading responsibility: His allies are even trying to justify Gingrich paying off the fine without having to open his wallet.
They suggest he could tap into his $1 million-plus campaign treasury. But wait a minute. Campaign funds can be used for purposes related to office duties, not personal expenses. Paying lawyers might be regarded as a normal business expense. But a fine for flouting tax laws and misleading Congress? That should be a personal debt.
Well, say the Gingrichites, how about a legal-defense fund, like the one President Clinton has? Not good, either. Most people would discern a difference between raising money to defend one's presumed innocence and raising money to pay a fine after you're found guilty.
But the $300,000 isn't really a fine, insists Gingrich; it's just to reimburse the House ethics committee for expenses. Not according to the committee's special counsel, James Cole. He says the committee decided on the monetary penalty after judging that Gingrich's offenses warranted more serious response than a reprimand. Even the fine and reprimand were a plea-bargain negotiated by Gingrich, with the support of Republicans on the committee, to avoid censure.
Now the speaker says he might push for a House rule imposing sharp penalties on the filing of frivolous or false ethics complaints, implying he's the victim of such. Democrats, to be sure, have filed numerous frivolous complaints against him; their partisan excesses have helped poison the House atmosphere.
But that doesn't change the bipartisan ethics committee's finding that "over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities."
Indeed, newly released committee documents could prove a treasure trove for the Internal Revenue Service, which has been investigating Gingrich's tax-avoidance maneuvers. Evidence collected by Cole shows that GOPAC, Gingrich's political committee, brazenly used tax-exempt charities to raise funds for political activities. Tax-deductible contributions to the foundations were shifted to GOPAC. Givers were even thanked for supporting political operations.
Gingrich says he was "naive." How naive does he think we are? What happened to his insistence on personal responsibility, his rejection of situational ethics, his passion for holding the speaker's office to high standards, his disdain for people who wallow in "victim" status, his pledge to apply to Congress the laws that apply to real people?
Gingrich says his enemies are out to get him. Undoubtedly. But you have to worry about the speaker's effectiveness as he returns to work with House members who, he says, railroaded him. Their reprimand passed 395-28.
LENGTH: Medium: 62 linesby CNB