Prosecutions Unlimited

The acquittal of former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy on federal corruption charges ratchets up the debate over congressional renewal of the independent prosecutor law. If Congress does extend the statute, which is doubtful given the political fallout from Espy, Monicagate, Whitewater and Iran-Contra, limits should be set on the amount spent and the scope and duration of a probe. There must be an end to run-on waste of years and millions of dollars.

The Espy case was about professional football, basketball and tennis tickets, luggage and other favors. Espy, exonerated by a jury after putting on no defense, admits only to an error in judgment in accepting gifts from corporations regulated by the department he headed. Ethically, his lapses represent much more because even the suggestion of bribery breaks trust and undermines democracy.

Still, his transgressions are peanuts compared with the really big money flung around in what amounts to legalized bribery--the unregulated “soft money” contributions that in effect are funneled to candidates through political parties. It’s a sense of proportion that’s missing: Espy’s reckless acceptance of $33,000 in gifts should have been investigated, but not to the tune of $20 million and for four years. What cost so much and took so long? No independent counsel should be allowed to root around with neither deadline nor spending limits.

Prolonged and ridiculously expensive investigations were never the intent of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Congress passed it in the post-Watergate era in part to prevent another “Saturday night massacre,” President Richard Nixon’s successful effort to fire Archibald Cox, the special counsel investigating him. Special counsels are now appointed and overseen by a panel of three federal judges. Yet, $50 million and seven years were spent on the Iran-Contra investigation. And four years and more than $40 million into Kenneth W. Starr’s probe of President Clinton, the clock is still ticking, the meter still running.

Current excesses notwithstanding, an independent, impartial and credible investigation is needed whenever serious allegations of wrongdoing are made against a sitting president, vice president or the 75 executive branch officials covered by the statute. Not every attorney general, beholden to the White House, can be expected to move aggressively and without political considerations in such sticky matters. But whatever emerges when the current independent counsel law expires, it should include limits on time and spending, periodic oversight and a mandate to probe only acts committed during the term of office.