Talk Central Section: discuss hot topics of the day online.

All Editorials and Op-Ed columns from this morning's Washington Post.

All editorials and commentary from Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section.

. . . And a Pattern of Influence

Back in December 1995, when China's leading dissident had just been sentenced to a second long jail term, his sister came to Washington, hoping to meet with Vice President Gore. She hoped that Gore, who had just held talks with China's president, would lobby for a lighter sentence or even the release of her brother, Wei Jingsheng, who had already spent 14 years in jail for his peaceful advocacy of democracy -- and whose health was fragile.

But the sister, Wei Shanshan, never got an audience with the vice president, though U.S. senators and others pleaded with Gore on her behalf. Wei Jingsheng, often considered the Sakharov of China, is back in jail today, serving a 14-year term.

Gore of course is a busy man, and Wei Shanshan did manage to see his national security adviser. Still, it was hard not to recall her brushoff when it emerged last week that Gore had plenty of time back in 1993 for Shen Jueren. Gore and Shen, chairman of the state-owned China Resources Group, broke bread together at a private dinner hosted by a Democratic fund-raiser in the Los Angeles area. Afterward, star fund-raiser John Huang -- who attended the dinner, too -- sent a gushing note to a Gore aide: "Vice President Gore was just super."

The Gore-Shen get-together was uncovered by investigators for Sen. Fred Thompson's Government Affairs Committee, which is currently holding hearings on campaign finance abuse. The panel, and reporters covering its early hearings, have devoted much attention to unproven allegations of a Chinese conspiracy to influence U.S. elections and of suspicions that Huang played a role in that plot.

Wherever that trail leads, a different kind of pattern of influence already is emerging. Asians with close connections to the Beijing government, with business interests in China and with strong views favoring a U.S. rapprochement with the Beijing regime enjoyed easy access to the White House. Asians with other views did not.

Shen's dinner with Gore is part of this pattern, as was his earlier meeting with Gore's chief of staff. So were President Clinton's many meetings with James Riady, scion of an Indonesian family with major China investments; his coffee with Wang Jun, chairman of a leading Chinese arms-trading company; and his session with Thai executives of the C. P. Group, among the largest foreign investors in China.

Last week, the Senate committee released evidence of another example: Hong Kong tycoon Eric Hotung's brief meeting with then-deputy national security adviser Sandy Berger in the White House, and his longer session with one of Berger's staff. Hotung heads an institute that promotes better U.S.-China relations. His American wife and her real estate company have given the Democrats nearly $300,000 since 1988, support Democratic chairman Don Fowler mentioned in urging Berger to meet with Hotung. Both Berger and his aide say they can't remember what they discussed with Hotung. Chances are it wasn't human rights.

There's nothing wrong with Clinton, Gore and their aides meeting with Asian businessmen -- if those with other viewpoints, but less money, enjoyed equivalent access. The White House turned itself inside out wondering whether to offend China by admitting Hong Kong democrat Martin Lee or Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama; under congressional pressure, Clinton granted both of them "drop-by visits," though not front-door appointments. Wei Shanshan was less fortunate, and less well-known human rights activists don't even bother to try.

Earlier this year, Clinton offered as reassurance the pledge that he had never changed government policy "solely because of a contribution." Later in the same news conference, he said that any politician listens to his contributors, "but you should never make a decision and do something solely because they have helped you or solely in anticipation of something they might do for you in the future."

The way to prevent abuse, Clinton added, is to make the system "open enough and transparent enough" for Americans to see how decisions are made.

There's no doubt that Clinton was fairly describing the U.S. political system, not only at the White House but in Congress. The widespread sense that the scale of giving and of purchasing access and influence have gotten out of hand is the basic scandal that Congress is trying so hard not to deal with.

But the China-money scandal is different. It's questionable whether a president should change a policy even partially because a contributor wants him to; there's no question that most Americans would object if he did so in response to foreign money, whether Indonesian or Thai or Chinese. And there was nothing open or transparent about the meetings with Shen, Hotung and the rest.

What's the harm, beyond the shame of American leaders not standing up for a hero like Wei Jingsheng? Proponents of a "soft" China policy will tell you that political fallout from the scandal has limited Clinton's ability to make the concessions to China that are in America's long-term interest.

More dangerous is the reverse possibility: that imbalanced access to the White House tilted U.S. policy toward China in the direction of more concessions than are in America's long-term interest.

Watch, in the next few months, for how Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reacts to Hong Kong's new, undemocratic election law. Look at whether the administration responds to what Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman calls credible evidence of a Chinese plan to subvert U.S. politics. See how well the administration fulfills its promises, undertaken during the recent MFN debate, to hold China to its international commitments. These are a few decisions that should be taken solely on their merits.

The writer is a member of the editorial page staff.