THE MAJORITY OPINION has accomplished an interesting feat--while simultaneously jumping on the bash-Meese-forever-without-evidence bandwagon, it manages at the same time to smear a White House advisor who has done nothing improper, has never been officially accused of any wrong-doing, and is in any case leaving the Government.

What have these men done to deserve such treatment by the press, both large and small? Consider the original charges against Ed Meese, for instance (which have all proven baseless). Not withstanding the fact that no Civil Service or Ethics in Government Act regulations were violated by the offer of jobs to certain Meese business associates, he has still been accused of "unethical behavior." Consider the ramifications of this charge--any government appointee who had advantageous business relations with an administration official prior to assuming federal office could be publicly smeared and disqualified. Under this criteria most senior federal officials in the nation's history, both conservative and liberal, could be branded "unethical," questions of actual guilt or innocence notwithstanding.

The gratuitous dig at the Deavers merits similar dismissal. Mrs. Deaver has not been accused by anyone of using her influence with her husband to further her own interests or that of her PR firms' clients. Nevertheless, even though no conflict of interest exists, Mrs. Deaver is somehow "wrong" to accept good pay for her public relations work. Moreover, the meaningless charge that she is "unqualified" for PR (should she have gone to PR school?) is similar to charges brought against Meese--that he is unworthy of the Attorney Generalship, not prepared for or knowledgeable enough about the job. Again, such allegations are made even though Meese is a lawyer and taught law in California for several years (neither of which can be said about Bobby Kennedy).

A final disturbing facet of the majority opinion is its vague notion that Administration officials (and their family members, too) should not make outside income, even if it's completely legal and conflicts with nothing in their official lives. Deaver is only the latest in a long line of both executive and legislative leaders in recent years, of all ideological stripes, who have made the perfectly reasonable decision that federal office is not financially viable. (One has to wonder about Geraldine Ferraro's present feelings along this line.) Washington is an expensive city; the long-term consequences for our political leadership may indeed be dire if the constant attacks by national journalists (presumably, well-paid) on the financial dealings of political appointees do not assume a more rational base.

Certainly one of the greatest strengths of our national press is its ability to hold officials rightly accountable for their actions when laws have been broken or interests conflict. But single-minded, baseless smearing and ridiculing of public figures crodes the credibility and effectiveness of the very institution we trust to ferret out true wrong-doing.