Wertheimer: Well, the speaker has always worked both sides of the street on the corruption ethics issues. I think it's very important to understand that if you look at the history of speaker Gingrich, issues of ethics and corruption have been partisan weapons, not moral concepts. So that he, in effect, has made his bones on these issues during his many years in the minority. He attacked the House as a corrupt institution. He brought ethics charges. He constantly attacked the legitimacy of the institution. At the same time, he built a financial empire based on special interest and private influence money. He did everything he could to block the reforms, the serious reforms of the system that were undertaken. And now of course he's the king of this corrupt system. The money is flowing his way. And what he's trying to do here is scramble. He's trying to still hold off the notion that he wants to change this system while he's continuing a pattern of trying to make sure the corrupt system stays in place.

This, by the way, is going to be the ultimate test for Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries. Because, you can't be a revolutionary if you're doing it floating on an ocean of huge campaign contributions from corporate America and wealthy individuals. And the ultimate test here is -- will he lead the effort or will he allow the effort to fundamentally change the way Washington works? Or is he going to do what he's done throughout his history, which is -- behind the scenes, and sometimes publicly, try to make sure that this corrupt system in Washington stays in place?

Q: You don't see him as the rebel and the outsider and the revolutionary, I take it.

Wertheimer: Well, when you look at this corruption of the political system that exists today, when you look at the way business is done in Washington and in terms of lobbyists, huge campaign contributions, people buying and selling access and influence over government policy, Newt Gingrich is a career Washington inside politician. And in fact today, Newt Gingrich is perhaps the leading practitioner of the Washington influence money game, certainly one of the two or three top practitioners. So, when it comes to money, lobbyists, the break-down of the political system, Newt Gingrich is the opposite of revolutionary. He is the chief protector, preserver, and defender of this corrupt system.

And so you then have to look at this revolution as it plays out because one of the fundamental questions that we're gonna have to see when we add it all up at the end is: who is being satisfied by this revolution? America's middle class? All of American citizens? Or America's political donor class? Is Newt Gingrich a revolutionary to change the way business is done in Washington? Or is Newt Gingrich a front for the establishment class that has exercised disproportionate, improper influence over government policy in recent decades through the use of money?

Q: There's a Congresswoman, Linda Smith, who is, in effect, saying these are the old boys, old establishment--Dems and Republicans trying to stall reform. What's going on with Linda Smith?

Wertheimer: Well, Linda Smith is Newt Gingrich's Newt Gingrich. Linda Smith has come to Washington to change this system. She's got a track record (before she came here) in the state of Washington for being a political reformer, of working to change the campaign finance laws. From everything I've seen, she is dead set and dead serious about fundamental change in the way business is done in Washington. And she's just basically calling it as she sees it and she's correct.

You've got Newt Gingrich and you've got some senior Democrats who can't agree on anything, but seem to be interested in walking hand in hand to once more try to block change in Washington. I think the Speaker is making a fundamental mistake here. He's making frankly the same mistake that President Clinton and Speaker Foley made in early 1993, when they decided after an election based on change in Washington, that they could get away with putting this issue to the side, not dealing with the way in which money is corrupting the political process, and just doing their other stuff and getting away with it. The 1994 election was a rejection of the Democrats and part of what they were rejecting was this corrupt system in Washington. A corrupt system that Newt Gingrich had been attacking for 16 years. Now Newt Gingrich wins, he becomes speaker, you don't hear the words from his mouth any more about the House being a corrupt institution. You don't hear him talking about a corrupt system any more. He somehow seems to believe that his presence as speaker has magically washed away all the problems that come from these millions of dollars of corrupt campaign contributions. He too was trying to get away with it .

And one of the things that Linda Smith is doing is very simple. She's telling truth to power. Just like Newt Gingrich thought he was telling truth to power when he was a new member. She is basically saying that this isn't going to work. If we don't clean up this system, we will not have accomplished the change we were elected to change. And Newt Gingrich so far is saying, 'We can get away with it. We can fool the American people.' There's another big consequence for the speaker here if he doesn't see the light and doesn't understand that his words actually require him to change this rotten system. The consequence is this: his revolution will not have any moral or political legitimacy in America. Speaker Gingrich's new government will be a government that came out of a corrupt political process and the people are going to be just as cynical about him and his changes as they have been about what's going on now. He is ultimately going to fail in his revolution as well as fail in his stated goal, of cleaning up a corrupt system if he doesn't straighten up and fly right here and get in front of the line and say, 'All right, I am gonna clean up this corrupt rotten mess in Washington.'