A Case of Wright and Wrong

By MARGARET CARLSON

Ethics is all the rage in Washington these days, as Speaker of the House Jim Wright can testify. This week the House Ethics Committee will release a 450- page report summing up a ten-month investigation of Wright's alleged wrongdoing. A vocal minority of Republicans, led by G.O.P. whip Newt Gingrich, predict that the inquiry will result in Wright's censure, removal as Speaker or maybe even expulsion. But in the end he is likely to hang on to his job because this is an argument not about right and wrong but about the peculiar ethics rules of the House.

Those rules tolerate large swaths of gray and encourage euphemism. Bribes, graft and expenses-paid vacations are never talked about on Capitol Hill. Honorariums, campaign contributions and per diem travel reimbursements are. Cash gifts, even of $100,000, are not automatically illegal, as long as they are disclosed and the giver has no direct interest in legislation. Neither is free use of posh apartments and expensive cars.

The Wright investigation began last June when Republicans, stung by the improprieties of Mike Deaver and Ed Meese, set out to make sleaze a bipartisan issue. As the highest-ranking Democrat, Wright, whose slicked-back hair, caterpillar eyebrows and leering grin give him the look of a wheeler-dealer, was a good target. After revelations of an unusual deal in which a Texas publisher paid Wright 55% royalties -- three or four times the usual rate -- for a collection of the Speaker's speeches and anecdotes, Common Cause and 72 Republicans asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate.

The $1.5 million probe unearthed numerous allegations, many of which have been discarded. The committee found that Wright's heavy-handed intervention with federal officials on behalf of failing Texas savings and loan associations was no more than what other Texas Congressmen were doing. His intercession with Government officials and Egypt's Anwar Sadat to help a Texas oil-and-gas company was also found to be all in a day's work for the average member.

That leaves the committee to decide on two questions that are, at the least, embarrassing to the Speaker. One is whether Wright's financial dealings with Fort Worth developer George Mallick violated House rules. The other is whether Wright's sweetheart royalty deal was designed to get around congressional limits on outside income.

Mallick, who has known the Speaker for some 30 years, hired Wright's wife Betty in 1979 as an adviser. The job description was hazy, but the salary was $18,000 a year. Perks included a rent-free apartment and a Cadillac. In 1981, for the same salary and benefits, Betty Wright went to work for Mallightco, an investment company that the Wrights had formed with Mallick and his wife. Betty Wright also borrowed $75,000 from Mallightco. After she stopped working for the company in 1984, the Wrights paid $21.67 per diem for the apartment when they used it and then purchased it in 1988 for $58,500. Eventually they bought the Cadillac.

In 1985 Mallick co-signed $2.2 million loan for a real estate project developed by his two sons. In 1986, when Mallick feared the loan might be foreclosed, he organized a meeting in Fort Worth at which struggling thrift officials complained to Wright about overzealous federal regulation; he later gave the Speaker a report on their complaints. During this period Wright was deeply involved in efforts to draft legislation that would help ailing S & Ls and grant them more leniency from federal regulators.

Then there is Reflections of a Public Man, the most notorious non-best seller of 1984. Critics charge that the unusually high 55% royalty payments could have been used to thwart rules that would keep the Speaker from accepting more than $34,500 in speaking fees annually. At least three times, staff members -- once with the Speaker's knowledge -- asked the sponsors of Wright speeches not to pay an honorarium but buy an equivalent number of books instead. By so doing, the speaker could pocket the proceeds without breaching the limit.

Although Republicans once smelled blood, it now looks as if Wright will survive. Wright's financial ties to Mallick seem to have ended before he began his campaign on behalf of Texas thrifts. Wright has no investments in S & Ls. Besides, the highly partisan attacks by Wright's archenemy Newt Gingrich have aroused the Democrats' protective instincts. Democrats with ambition to succeed Wright, like Dan Rostenkowski and John Dingell, have not deserted him, nor has Majority Leader Tom Foley, probably the only Democrat popular enough to win his spot. No matter how unseemly Wright's dealings may appear to ordinary citizens, they are probably not unseemly enough to violate the shabby standards that apply on Capitol Hill.

With reporting by Hays Gorey/Washington