QUESTIONS ABOUT MISSOURI SPEAKER ARE SERIOUS MATTER

Revelations of a powerful state official's alleged influence peddling riveted Missourians this past week. The Kansas City Star reported last Sunday that House Speaker Bob Griffin, D-Cameron, made what that newspaper called "veiled threats" against a casino operator, Sahara Gaming Corp. of Las Vegas.

As speaker, Griffin is widely understood to possess life-or-death power over the passage of legislation and to be second only to the governor in influence. Sahara chairman Paul Lowden claims Griffin repeatedly demanded that Sahara give an ownership interest in a proposed gambling boat in Parkville to Public Issues Management Inc., a political fund-raising group that has worked closely with the speaker in past campaigns. The gambling company's executives say that in meetings, telephone calls and letters they were told that, unless they cut Griffin's friends in on an ownership share worth either $16 million or 20 percent of the project, trouble in getting a state gaming license could follow. Somehow, the Star obtained a copy of a Sept. 9, 1993, letter Griffin wrote that they say backs up their allegation.

In that letter, Griffin wrote the following two sentences: "In order to facilitate your client's application for a license ... you may submit the following names and entities as minority interests in said application and operation." Or again: "Continued refusal by your clients to recognize this agreement and disclosure of such dispute in the application process will obviously not be conducive to the prompt issuance of a license."

Suffice it to say Griffin probably wishes, today, that he hadn't written those lines. Whether they represent a violation of any state law is questionable. Still, most observers are agreeing with an anonymous Jefferson City lawyer, quoted in one published report, who observed: "There's probably no violation of state statutes, but it doesn't pass the `smell test'. Those letters look terrible in the paper."

There exists at least the possibility of a violation of federal statutes concerning what the law calls "oppression in office," which is the use by a public official of the powers or influence of his office to threaten or intimidate a citizen. That is, of course, for federal authorities to pursue. In this regard, all parties agree that the FBI has had the Griffin letter since Sahara officials gave it to them last fall.

More troubling still is the identity of two of the investors Griffin was suggesting for inclusion. They are two Las Vegas attorneys well-known for representing mobsters. Each has refused to testify before grand juries, and each has been found in contempt of court for this refusal. They are blacklisted by the Nevada Gaming Commission, which regulates the industry there.

As a high public official, Griffin has no business associating with such characters. He has no business signing letters in his private law practice, as he did in this instance, "BOB GRIFFIN, SPEAKER." Further, we wonder, quite apart from the question of a statutory violation, why Griffin would take on such a client and engage such representation at all.

For his part, Griffin makes much of the anti-gaming editorial stance long maintained by the Star. He accuses the Star of "tabloid journalism" and of failing to air fully his side of the story.

Another point worth mentioning concerns what some have called "the arrogance of power." Having held the top House job since 1980, Griffin is, by far, the longest serving speaker in Missouri history. Missouri voters, who in 1992 passed a term limits constitutional amendment by more than 70 percent, might give thought to the need for term limits for those serving in legislative leadership positions.

Lacking more information at this point, it doesn't appear we have enough to demand, as one large Missouri newspaper did this week, that Speaker Griffin resign. Missourians can hope that the adverse publicity has chastened Griffin and other public officials, and this is to the good. The gaming industry is new to Missouri, and the importance of retaining public confidence in its integrity cannot be overestimated.