DATE: Friday, February 28, 1997             TAG: 9702270020

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A16  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   62 lines

CAMPAIGN SCANDALS MAKING DISTINCTIONS POSSIBLE CRIMES MUST BE INVESTIGATED, BUT THE SYSTEM ALSO NEEDS REFORM.

Determined not to be outspent by the GOP, President Clinton's campaign for re-election set new records for fund raising. It also set records for dubious campaign-finance practices.

It is right to be scandalized by revelations that have begun to arrive daily. But distinctions need to be made. Some acts were unseemly, but - alas - familiar. Others may have been illegal, and some allegations regarding foreign governments are deeply disturbing. All don't deserve the same scrutiny by the same people.

Contributions by foreign individuals are already illegal. Yet even in the face of national-security warnings, the hand apparently stayed out. If it can be shown that foreign governments were behind such contributions, that would be worse. And if it can be shown that policies of the United States government were influenced that would be a mega-scandal indeed.

National-security matters need to be investigated quickly. That ought to rule out special counsels whose investigations often drag on only to prove inconclusive. The partisan circus of a congressional hearing is also an unappealing venue. The FBI are the logical people to investigate potential crimes. And they are doing so.

The rest of the scandalous goings-on are the usual wretched excess. Coffees in the White House with regulators and turning the Lincoln Bedroom into an upscale motel are different in degree but not in kind from campaign finance as usual.

It is not an attempt to let Clinton off the hook to say everybody does it if everybody does do it. In fact, the money chase is the way of life in Washington. Special access for fat cats was institutionalized in the Mossbacher 100 of the Bush campaign of 1988. Bob Dole spent his life aloft in corporate jets and his legislative record demonstrates his gratitude. Democrats raised a whopping $141 million in soft money in 1996, but the Republicans weren't far behind with $122 million.

One problem with the present system is its lack of teeth. After an election is bought, there are wrist slaps. But nobody has to give the election back. And the party isn't penalized for excesses in this election with sanctions or limits in the next election. Lacking penalties that matter, the impetus is to win at any cost and take the bad press later.

If Congress can investigate with an eye to reform, it should proceed. But the odds favor a partisan witch hunt. The best hope is Sen. Fred Thompson's effort, but it is being undermined by members of both parties. Democrats want to limit Thompson's investigation of Clinton by limiting his funds. Republicans are anxious to limit his investigation to Clinton. They are leery of Thompson casting a wide net because GOP fund-raising efforts can't stand scrutiny either.

The alternative is to appoint yet another special counsel for yet another interminable investigation. That might produce a detailed report on the 1996 election - in 2004. It won't produce reform. Only Congress can do that, by passing McCain-Feingold, for instance. Or by giving the Federal Election Commission the power to mete out substantial punishments. And Congress isn't inclined to act since the present system benefits incumbents.

Sen. John McCain is right. When the public gets sufficiently fed up and threatens Congress with unemployment, they'll clean up. But not until.

In that sense, the daily revelations may actually be furthering the cause of reform by bringing the electorate to a nice rolling boil.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu