THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 17, 1994 TAG: 9407150004
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 65 lines
Bill Clinton's decision to establish a legal defense fund has drawn fire on several grounds. The president shouldn't be seen as a beggar, say some; the posture embarrasses his office. Even if he has to beg to pay enormous legal fees, say others, he shouldn't take contributions from lobbyists and others with business before the government.
These points are true enough. In mitigation there's no defense save necessity hinged to showing he can't afford lawyer bills required to defend himself against a sexual harassment suit and both the Clintons against actions arising out of business and political dealings with an Arkansas savings and loan operator. Such a showing mightn't be difficult. Although the harassment suit, also dating from his days as governor, seems simple, his lawyers may try to stave it off with claims of constitutional immunity. That would make for long-running meters. When the meter of his leading outside counsel runs at $475 an hour, the bill grows quickly.
At this point, the necessity argument for the legal defense fund becomes thinner. Obviously there are able lawyers who charge less; it was the president's choice to engage a top gun and, hence, maximize dependence on some very cheerful givers. He chose the best that the money of others, including lobbyists, could buy.
Who wouldn't have so chosen? One nominee: Bill Clinton, presidential candidate whose rhetoric blazed against the influence of special interests and favor-seekers. He was going to ``re-invent government'' in so many ways and bring it closer to ordinary folk in the hard-pressed middle class.
Once elected, the earnest thumper for cleaner politics was promptly absorbed into the Washington system. To be sure, he spoke for campaign-finance reform and may well have desired it but hardly put his shoulder to the wheel. With reform measures mired in the Congress, he went hunting for the very kind of contributions reforms would ban.
Why not? asked his aides: If the Republicans are out hustling for big bucks to boost the GOP, can the Democrats be expected to don rags of repentance? This defense echoes the response of the great economizer Phil Gramm when chided for pushing pork projects for Texas. He despised pork, said the Republican senator, but as long as it was in supply, he meant for his state to get its full share.
The president, for his part, has not come away empty-handed from fund-raisers. Time magazine reports that he has helped raise $41 million for Democratic coffers in less than two years, including $3.5 million at a Washington event where contributions ranged from $1,500 to more than $50,000. For this, said Time, the president ``delivered a passionate speech extolling the honorable motives of the donors'' and urging them to rebut anybody's ``cynical'' notions that they might be trying to feather their nests.
Such an utterance suggests that the American political system is moving away from reform, turning inward rather than outward, and has absolutely no need to fret about ``re-invention.'' It also can be read to suggest that Clinton anguished little before asking others to pay his legal bills. If insider giving is as great a virtue as his speech suggested, so must be insider taking. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. ILLUSTRATION: Drawing
PRESIDENT CLINTON
by CNB