Guess Who's Paying for Dinner

TONY AND HUGH RODHAM, THE brothers of First Lady Hillary Clinton, prepared for this week with only the dimmest understanding of the Washington Inaugural fandango. Tony knew that Step 1 was to go out and buy a tuxedo. Step 2 was equally simple: hire a lawyer to dial the Top 10 companies in America and get them to bankroll the brothers' parties. "We obviously need to pay for it somehow," Hugh told the Wall Street Journal.

In some ways, the ambition of their reach as they solicited $10,000 donations from the likes of Ford Motor Co. and Mobil Corp. is surprising for two men who have declared that their only goal in the capital is to raid the White House refrigerator. "As you can see, we do like to eat," Tony has said about himself and his portly brother. But at another level, the Boys, as the family has called them for years, may have simply exhibited the naive impulse of new guests wanting desperately to join the party. (Most potential bankrollers turned them down, and the fetes were dropped.) In contrast with Clinton's populist campaign, his $30 million Inauguration -- 50% more than originally budgeted -- will be a corporate sponsorfest almost on a par with the Super Bowl or the Olympics. Washington's elite will be trading power peeks for petit-fours, handshakes for hefty checks.

Ross Perot won 19 million votes partly by rebuking this culture. Clinton took up the same campaign sermon, but some incoming Democrats do not seem to have heard it. Secretary of Commerce-designate Ron Brown was ready to attend a Kennedy Center gala in his honor sponsored by American and Japanese companies that could well plead their case before him in the next four years. When news of the event made headlines last week, the Brown camp bristled with defiance. "You and other reporters are under the illusion that corporate interests are paying for this just to cozy up to Ron Brown, and that's just not so," said spokeswoman Ginny Terzano. So why then would Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo, Textron and Sony Music Entertainment possibly wish to pay for a party? "Because they were asked to," Terzano said. Clinton let it be known that he was angry about the affair, and Brown canceled the event, along with two other, mostly union-sponsored tributes. "Mr. Brown did not want any further distractions to take place," Terzano said.

None of this would register on Washington's outrage meter if Clinton had not huffed so loudly about influence peddling when he was just a candidate. "It's long past time to clean up Washington," he and Al Gore wrote in Putting People First, their best-selling campaign manifesto. "On streets where statesmen once strolled, a never-ending stream of money now changes hands -- tying the hands of those elected to lead." A quick spin through the capital's current multimillion-dollar arcade of Inaugural sponsorship suggests that plenty of Democrats have had their hands out. The sight of all this solicitation galls some of the Washington lobbyists who were pilloried on the campaign trail. "This is just like Reagan and Bush, but the difference is that Clinton was so sanctimonious about lobbying," said a financier who helped raise nearly $1 million to pay for an Inaugural ball. Says another big donor: "This is big-time pressure. Every passing day, they're calling around for something else."