(2 of 3)
Committee counsel Richard Phelan insisted that Mallick did have such an interest, if only because his extensive oil and real estate holdings made him much more vulnerable to any change in tax laws than the ordinary American. But Mallick does not meet three standard tests of direct interest: he is not a lobbyist, he employs no lobbyists, and he does not have a political-action committee. By the standard of interest that the ethics committee seems to be applying to Mallick, says one member of Congress, "I couldn't talk to my own mother. She's 65, and on Social Security."
The Speaker also sought to make some headway by concentrating his defense not on himself but on his wife Betty. The committee charged that Betty was paid $18,000 a year by Mallick for doing no work. Wright indignantly defended his wife's integrity and insisted she did work as an investment adviser; he produced a list of proposed investments she had supposedly looked into for Mallick. Mallick seems never to have acted on any, but Betty explained to the Washington Post that her advice frequently had been not to buy. To the New York Times she complained that "they are making me a Nancy Reagan . . . I am being accused of changing ((Wright's)) life not for the better but for the worse."
Attorney Oldaker concedes that there is no written proof that Betty ever did anything: no memos written by or to her, no memos written by others in which she is mentioned, no indication that she worked in Mallick's offices more than five to seven days a month. Even so, Wright's defense may win the sympathy of many of the 300-odd members of Congress whose wives or husbands also hold paid jobs. They are not at all eager to set a precedent that might encourage future investigators to ask exactly what it is their spouses do and what interest in legislation the spouses' bosses may have.
Wright may have more trouble defending himself against charges relating to bulk sales of his nonbook Reflections of a Public Man (it consists mainly of speech excerpts slapped together by an aide). On the surface, at least, the sales look like a blatant attempt to slide around House limits on members' outside income; honorariums for speeches are restricted, but book royalties are not. In several cases Wright's staff members pointed out that the Speaker was near his limit on honorariums and suggested that organizations buy books instead of paying him directly. Wright refused to answer any questions about the book last week; if he or Oldaker has a plausible explanation, neither has come forward with it.
Moreover, the case against Wright may still be building. The committee last week dispatched two investigators to Texas to look further into an oil-well sale involving Wright. The story: Mallick and the Wrights were fifty-fifty partners in an investment company called Mallightco, but in 1987 Wright instructed the trustee of his blind trust to sell out. Mallick told the committee that he wanted to "bet the farm" on one more deal before the pullout.