Gingrich Ethics Case Enters New Phase

WASHINGTON —  Following his narrow reelection as House speaker, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Wednesday was thrust into a new phase of his ethics ordeal that is likely to provide another test of whether he can hold on to his leadership post.

During the next 10 days, the public for the first time will hear the full range of evidence arrayed against Gingrich. Soon afterward, the House Ethics Committee, which began meeting in private Wednesday, will decide what punishment to impose on him for giving false information about a college course that he taught and for failing to ensure that it was in compliance with tax law.

The committee is widely expected to recommend a punishment light enough to permit Gingrich to retain the speakership he won Tuesday. But Democrats have the power to force the House to vote on a proposal to impose a harsher punishment, including censure, which if approved would strip him of the speaker’s job.

“We’ve got a censure vote coming up,” said Rep. Mark David Souder (R-Ind.). “We’re going to be having major negotiations [within the party] every day.”

Souder and others predicted that Gingrich will weather further challenges--so long as no other major revelations emerge.

At issue is a college course that Gingrich taught in 1993-95 with financial support from tax-exempt foundations. The ethics panel found that Gingrich failed to get appropriate legal advice on whether he was complying with tax laws prohibiting the use of tax-exempt funds for partisan purposes and that--after the committee began its investigation--the speaker gave false information about the connection between the course and his political activities.

A central question is whether the facts of the case, when fully known, will support Gingrich’s argument that his admitted ethical lapses were mistakes of inattention. Only a 22-page summary of the case was released in December.

Exactly when the matter will come to a close has become a matter of bitter dispute. James M. Cole, the Ethics Committee’s special counsel in the case, and the panel’s investigative subcommittee have asked House leaders to extend a Jan. 21 deadline the committee had imposed on itself because the members involved say they need more time to complete their work. Democrats also want the deadline extended.

But in a party-line vote, the House refused to grant the extension Tuesday. The dispute exacerbated the already partisan acrimony that has marred the Ethics Committee’s deliberations throughout its work on the matter.

Indeed, the panel’s first meeting on determining punishment got off to a rocky start. Although the committee had planned to meet in private, sources close to the committee said Democrats, infuriated by the GOP refusal to extend the Jan. 21 deadline, wanted to force the panel to meet in open session to discuss the schedule.

“If they want to describe why the schedule has to be constrained so members don’t get a fair chance to evaluate it, they ought to do it publicly,” said one Democratic source.

Late in the day, Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, the senior Democrat on the committee, said the panel was still arguing over some of the most basic elements of how the case would be handled, including “the room, when, how much time.”

The next step, once the subcommittee’s report is received and the schedule is set, is for the ethics panel to conduct an open session to hear arguments from Cole and Gingrich’s attorneys about what kind of punishment to impose. Then the members are to return to closed session to deliberate over punishment.

Even if the committee recommends a reprimand, a stronger punishment can be proposed by any lawmaker during floor debate, which opens the door for critics, led by House Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.). A senior Democratic aide said it is virtually certain that Democrats would push for censure.

By the time of the floor vote, Democrats calculate, public hearings and reports from Cole and the committee may have churned up enough public fury that Republicans will find it politically difficult to oppose censure.

William Kristol, a GOP strategist, said Gingrich’s survival of such a challenge may depend on whether House Republicans remain defensive about their leader or push on to address a substantive agenda.

“They are at a crossroads,” Kristol said. “If Republicans remain worried about the second or third shoe dropping when there are three new factoids in Cole’s report, then sticking with Newt won’t have done much good. Then they will stay on the defensive and maybe even let Bonior do him in.”