THE TROUBLE WITH NEWT

By Viveca Novak/Washington

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY Johnson returned to her Connecticut district last week to sell Newt Gingrich's revolution. But what she discovered is that Gingrich himself was the issue. In Torrington, a handful of activists interrupted her meeting on Medicare to protest what they called the "cover-up'' of alleged misdeeds by the Speaker of the House. Johnson, a respected moderate who chairs the House Ethics Committee, has been hearing that message a lot lately. Editorials with headlines like NO WHITEWASH, MRS. JOHNSON and ETHICS PANEL fails its duty have appeared all across the state.

Now, it seems, the protesters will get their way. After months of paralysis, the House Ethics Committee appears ready to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Speaker on at least some of the complaints lodged against him since he ascended to power. This amounts to Gingrich being Gingriched: it was the detective work of an outside counsel that forced then Speaker of the House, Democrat Jim Wright, to resign in disgrace in 1989. The crusading reformer agitating for the appointment of an independent counsel was none other than Gingrich. As he argued at the time, "The rules normally applied by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical member are insufficient in an investigation of the Speaker of the House. Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability and integrity."

This time, the pressure to name an outside counsel comes from both sides of the aisle. Even the vice president of the G.O.P. freshman class, Indiana Representative Mark Souder, is pushing the idea. At the same time, Johnson has been under constant pressure to move forward ever since May, when her committee deadlocked on the issue on a 5-to-5 vote along party lines.

With the appointment almost inevitable, the next fight on the panel will be over what the counsel will be allowed to investigate. Republicans want to keep the focus narrow, perhaps just on the possible tax-law violations involving the funding of the college course Gingrich taught. But the Democrats want a broad investigation of whether Gingrich broke federal laws and House rules as he mounted his long and deliberate campaign to become Speaker. Among the questions raised so far:

Did Gingrich use GOPAC, his political-action committee, to circumvent laws limiting candidate contributions and requiring that they be made public? The Federal Election Commission has already sued GOPAC because it says the group dodged federal disclosure requirements by falsely maintaining that GOPAC was involved only in state races. As a result, the commission contends, GOPAC was able to keep secret the names of its donors and how it spent its money. Last week the Washington Post reported that in 1986 Gingrich wrote to a prospective Tennessee contributor making plain his intent to use the group as the all-purpose engine behind a Republican takeover of Congress. An article in the New Yorker, meanwhile, stated a GOPAC official said the group either contributed or funneled large chunks of money to 1994 congressional candidates. If the contributions were direct, they far outstrip what the group reported to the FEC.

Was a college course Gingrich taught improperly funded by tax-deductible donations? The Progress and Freedom Foundation, which funded the course, was indirectly financed by taxpayers. If the course was distinctly partisan--and there is evidence that he designed it as a vehicle to spread his political dogma--the arrangement would be in violation of tax laws. Gingrich also faces complaints that he promoted the course from the House floor, pitching the 800 number through which he hoped the C-SPAN audience would buy his audio- and videotapes.

Did Gingrich exploit his position as House Speaker to land his lucrative book deal with HarperCollins? The publishing house is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who faced a potential battle over his ownership of a TV network. Although the controversy over the book deal forced Gingrich into giving back a $4.5 million advance, he has said he would accept royalties. The Ethics Committee is reportedly close to wrapping up its inquiry on this question.

Did Gingrich improperly intercede with government agencies on behalf of wealthy contributors to his various political enterprises? To find this out, investigators would need access to GOPAC's donor lists; the group began making available last year the names of current contributors, but many past ones are still not known.

Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley has denied all suggestions of impropriety, attributing them to Democratic sour grapes. The question now is just how much work Gingrich can get done with an investigator poking into the complicated political machinery that got him where he is.

--With reporting by Karen Tumulty/Washington

With reporting by Karen Tumulty/Washington