House Speaker Jim Wright was formally charged Monday with dozens of violations of House rules in a devastating, unanimous House ethics committee report, continuing a process that could spell the end of his four-decade public career.
The charges, stunning in their scope and severity, are tantamount to an internal indictment of the man who is second in the line of presidential succession. They were endorsed by all 12 members of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct-six Democrats and six Republicans. But its chairman, Julian Dixon (D., Calif.), cautioned that Wright ”has not yet been found guilty of any violation.”
Specifically, the committee, which has spent 10 months and $1.5 million in an investigation conducted by its outside counsel, Chicago lawyer Richard Phelan, found ”reason to believe” that in 69 instances Wright was in violation of House rules in two areas of private financial activities.
It is alleged that he tried to circumvent the limitations on outside income through bulk sales of a book he wrote, and that he failed to report gifts from a family friend and business partner who had a direct interest in legislation.
Wright, 66, who was speaking to a labor group as the committee presented its report, said: ”I know in my heart I have not violated any of the rules of that institution.” He said he had asked ”very urgently” for a meeting with the committee ”to confront them, to confront the allegations head-on, face- to-face.”
According to House procedures, the committee will allow Wright and his lawyer, William Oldaker, 21 days to respond to the allegations, though that step could be abbreviated. The committee then has 30 days to decide if a public disciplinary hearing should be held and what punishment, if any, the panel should recommend to the House. The punishment could be as light as a letter of reproval or as severe as expulsion from the House.
”At this point in the proceedings,” Dixon said, ”we are acting as judges.”
Oldaker said Monday he would ask that the Texas Democrat be allowed to rebut the committee`s charges ”very shortly.” Meeting with reporters late in the day, Wright said, ”I want the earliest possible opportunity to get this resolved decisively and definitively and get it behind us.”
Oldaker characterized the committee`s charges as ”Orwellian,” calling them ”a lot of noise, a lot of clamoring, but very little of substance.”
One member of the Republican leadership, Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, saw it differently. ”There are a couple of things we learned today,” Weber said. ”We learned the charges are not trivial, they are not technical and they are not aimed at his (Wright`s) wife.”
The standard for ”convicting” Wright under House rules is much higher than finding alleged violations. The committee must find ”clear and convincing” evidence of wrongdoing.
With other panel members arrayed behind him in a packed House hearing room, a somber Dixon defended the committee process, saying the panel has
”tried to be fair in this whole process . . . fair to the respondent, and we have kept faith with this institution.”
Whatever the committee findings, the issue is almost certain to wind up in a vote on the House floor. Even if the panel does not recommend punishment for the speaker, any member of the House could call the issue up for a resolution.
The floor vote will likely determine Wright`s political fate and could mark the first time a speaker of the House has been deposed in midterm. No previous speaker has ever been formally charged with violations of House rules.
While Republicans were generally keeping quiet as the committee issued its report, Wright`s Democratic supporters were gearing up to debate the charges one by one.
Rep. Martin Frost (D., Tex.) attended the committee`s press conference and told a large group of reporters, ”I think the speaker will clearly be found innocent when this is over.” He said the full House vote is ”a long way off.”
Another Texas Democrat, Rep. Charles Wilson, said, ”At some point, we`ve got to start figuring out who`s on our side and who`s on the other side.”
In its report, the committee found Wright ”demonstrated an overall scheme to evade” the House`s limitation on outside earned income with seven sales of multiple copies of his book ”Reflections of a Public Man” to groups to which he delivered speeches from 1984 to 1987. The committee defined and voted on an eighth similar instance but chose not to include it in the statement of alleged violations.
Under the rules, book royalties are not considered earned income, but the committee found that Wright had sometimes requested that organizations purchase books, on which he earned a 55 percent royalty, in lieu of paying him a speaking fee.
The ethics panel determined that Wright accepted $145,000 in gifts from 1979 to 1988 from George Mallick, a friend and business partner, in the form of free housing, cut-rate housing, a salary paid to Wright`s wife, Betty, and a car. The committee said Wright did not report these items as gifts and took the money even though Mallick had a ”direct interest” in legislation over which Wright had some influence.
Despite the numerous violations found by the committee, the panel`s report was far softer than an investigative document from Phelan, which proposed that Wright had violated more than 100 House rules.
The ethics panel also dismissed most of the initial charges brought last year by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R., Ga.). Gingrich, now the House Republican whip, had charged that the speaker used campaign funds to publish the book and improperly used congressional staff members to help write it.
Gingrich, who has not been reluctant to talk about the Wright case in the past, withheld comment Monday.
House Minority Leader Robert Michel (R., Ill.) said in a statement that it would be ”inappropriate for me to respond at this stage” to the committee report.
”There is no question that an investigation of a speaker of the House takes on extraordinary dimension, and requires procedures and processes which leave no doubts about the outcome,” Michel said.
Though the committee was united in its overall recommendations, it split several times over specific charges. On the most serious charge, that Wright had accepted gifts from Mallick even though his longtime friend had a direct interest in legislation, the committee split 8-4, with Democrats Chester Atkins of Massachusetts and Bernard Dwyer of New Jersey voting with committee Republicans.
The committee agreed with its counsel, Phelan, that Mallick ”more so than the general public” had an interest in federal legislation involving the real estate industry and oil and gas investments because of his business interests in those areas.
The committee found no evidence that Mrs. Wright did any identifiable work for the $18,000 annual salary she was paid from 1981 to 1984 as an employee of Mallightco Inc., an investment company co-owned by the Wrights and Mallick and his wife. Therefore, that salary was deemed to be a gift and
”imputed” to Wright because Mrs. Wright was not employed independently of her husband, according to the committee.
”The nature and extent of the apparent gifts to Representative Wright and his wife from Mr. Mallick indicates that Representative Wright failed in his duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,” the report said.
Oldaker called that charge ”nonsensical.” And Wright`s defenders maintained that the charges represent a reinterpretation of House rules, the product of an aggressive outside counsel determined to play a prosecutorial role.
”It`s clear to me that Mr. Phelan took control of this investigation and went off in the direction he wanted to go,” Oldaker said.
Making his first public remarks on the Wright case, Phelan said, ”I read my role not as a prosecutor, or a defense attorney, but as a gatherer of information.”
KEY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WRIGHT.
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct agreed that the following were alledged violations of House rules by Speaker Jim Wright (color)
– Count 1: Wright received income as royalties from the sale of his book,
”Reflections of a Public Man,” that was intended to avoid the House limit on outside income, honorariums and gifts. On eight separate occasions the book`s sale was arranged as compensation for speeches given by Wright. Committee votes: 10-2 (six for book-sale incidents), 9-3 and 7-5 on the other two counts.
– Count 2: From 1979 to 1984, Wright and his wife, Betty, accepted a gift of free housing in two apartments in Ft. Worth from George Mallick, a Wright friend and business partner who had a direct interest in legislation Committee vote: 12-0.
– Count 3: From 1985 to 1988, Mallick provided the Wrights with reduced-state housing in an apartment in Ft. Worth. This was also deemed to be a gift. Committee vote: 12-0.
– Count 4: Mrs. Wright accepted an $18,000 annual salary for four years from Mallightco Inc., a corporation owned jointly by the Mallicks and the Wrights. This salary appears to be a gift since there is no evidence that Mrs. Wright did any work for the company in return for the money. Committee vote: 10-2.
– Count 5: Mrs. Wright`s employment with Mallightco ended Dec. 31, 1984, but from 1983 to 1988 she was provided the free use of a ”company car,”
including its maintenance and operation costs. Committee vote: 12-0.
