The Wall Street Journal August 11, 1997 Review & Outlook Vacant Justice Attorney General Janet Reno stirred last week, going on the offensive against the U.S. Senate. In a stinging speech before the American Bar Association she accused Republicans of "an unprecedented slowdown" in the confirmation of Clinton judicial nominations and of "chilling judicial independence" by talking about moves to rein in activist judges. ABA President Jerome Shestack fell in line by calling some attacks on liberal judges by congressmen "un-American." Nonfeasance is a good subject. What is it called when the Attorney General fails to enforce a Supreme Court decision, specifically Beck, which allows union members to withhold dues payments meant for the union's political crusades? The administration is simply ignoring the decision. Then there is the matter of enforcing the Independent Counsel statute; Ms. Reno has managed to be oblivious to its provisions even as the campaign finance bonfires lap at the White House. Finally there's the matter of several key, vacant posts at Justice itself. Ms. Reno's dilatory attitude toward her own department is now to be the subject of a hearing by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde. None too soon, we'd say. The office of Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division has been vacant for two years. The Solicitor General hasn't existed for 13 months. And the job of assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel has been open for 13 months. Not that one more flouted law much matters for this administration but just for the record, these unfilled posts appear to violate the 1988 Vacancies Act. That act provides that a vacancy in an executive agency can be filled by someone in an acting capacity for no more than 120 days. Without such a restriction an agency in theory could be run for years by an acting head without any messy confirmation hearings ever being held. A Congressional Research Service study found that the criminal division's acting head "is in violation of the Act, the 120-day limitation period having long since passed." The Justice Department's Andrew Fois claims the Vacancies Act is "inapplicable" to it. But the Comptroller General disputes Justice's position, and the CRS study concludes that the Comptroller's position is "more likely to be upheld by a reviewing court." The scofflaw attitude of Justice in the matter of the Vacancies Act has been carried over to its refusal to acknowledge either a conflict of interest in its investigation of the Clinton campaign abuses or that there is credible evidence of wrongdoing by a high government official. That evidence is becoming compelling. Last week phone records were released showing that Vice President Al Gore made 44 fundraising calls to Democratic donors from his White House office in late 1995 and early 1996. Last March Mr. Gore insisted he used a Democratic National Committee credit card to make calls on "a few occasions" to ask people to contribute "to the campaign." Now we know the "few occasions" totaled 44, and the credit card was issued to the Clinton-Gore campaign and not the DNC. All of this places Mr. Gore in a difficult legal position. Despite his repeated claim that "no controlling legal authority" has indicated his calls were illegal, they appear to be in direct conflict with a federal felony statute. U.S.C. 607(a) states: "It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive any contributions . . . in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties . . . any person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than three years or both." White House Counsel Abner Mikva underlined the bright line on solicitation in April 1995 when he issued a legal admonition that "no fundraising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House." President Clinton and his vice president contend that as elected officials they aren't covered by U.S.C. 607(a). But that is flatly contradicted by a 1979 legal opinion from Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, holding that both officials were covered by the statute prohibiting fundraising in federal buildings. As recently as March, Justice Department spokesman John Russell told Human Events: "Yes, it does apply to the Vice President and President." So why the holdup at Justice? In refusing to call for an Independent Counsel, Attorney General Reno has said that to run afoul of the law the contributions must have been made with the intent of "influencing any election for federal office." She suggests this excludes "soft-money" contributions for party-building activities. This strains credulity. The Vice President has himself said that he "asked people to contribute to our re-election" and not the DNC, which the White House in any event treated as a wholly owned subsidiary. In addition, a memo from former White House aide Harold Ickes says the White House was treating the first $20,000 of large donations as "hard money," which the law required they had to have in certain proportions in order to spend the soft money they were also raising. As we've noted before, we'd like to see most of the constitutionally suspect limits on campaign contributions thrown out in favor of a regime of full and immediate Internet disclosure. But so long as the laws are on the books, the Attorney General has an obligation to note evidence they've been broken and act on it. (Pop quiz: If you were an editor, what would you consider bigger news--a vice president who made 44 fundraising calls from his office, or a vice president who misspelled "potato"?) Documents have also surfaced showing President Clinton personally asked for a list of potential contributors he wanted to call for money. From where--the jogging path? Five people on the list had their companies make large contributions. This evidence has been placed before Ms. Reno but still she sits. She'll get to sit before Henry Hyde in a few weeks and explain all of this. For now, the Reno Justice Department is loosening the standards of legal compliance and political independence. If she's able to do it, we assume all future attorneys general can do it, without expecting a peep of disapproval from much of anyone. Copyright © 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.