Campaign reform calling

Attorney General Janet Reno’s decision to reject Republican demands for an independent councel to inspect White House fund-raising activities was logical based on the narrowness of her inquiry, but leaves many larger questions unanswered. And even more troubling than her decision was the tremendous amount of work necessary to bring the investigation to this point.

The attorney general’s concern stayed close to charges that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore misused their positions by soliciting by their office telephones funds for their own campaigns. She reported that the Justice Department found scant evidence of this, although she noted that both men had raised soft money for the Democratic National Committee.

More intriguing charges of, for instance, the Clinton campaign’s connection with the Chinese government and the vice president’s fund-raising activities at a Buddhist temple, were not addressed by the attorney general. In this, the attorney general missed the point of public concern. Further, the lack of an adequate explanation for these questions could cause the president and vice president more trouble in the long run: A wide-ranging investigation might answer these questions.

Democrats dislike that idea because, even if it does not turn up anything substantial, they say it could create the appearance of impropriety. Their view, however, does not quite square with Kenneth Starr’s interminable Whitewater investigation and the president’s high poll ratings.

As worrisome as campaign fund-raising charges was the level of resources dedicated to checking them out. The attorney general reported that a staff of 120 had been working for months on the telephone-solicitation charges, the largest current effort in the Justice Department. If nothing else, the fact that it takes 120 people to investigate this should encourage the public to renew a call for campaign finance reform.

The lack of contribution limits for soft money, inadequate reporting requirements, vague standards of conduct in raising money give the president, and lots of other politicians, plenty of room to raise money in ways that few people would say encourages democratic values. Instead, they create an atmosphere of distrust and cynicism. Though it was not directly her job, the attorney general could have taken steps through her investigation to point out the shortcomings in the current system, setting an agenda for change.

Instead, she offered a decision that will keep her staff investigating, neither clearing the White House nor satisfying Congress. The public should feel shortchanged by her announcement.