March 14, 2001, Wednesday   ALL EDITIONS

SECTION: EDITORIAL,  Pg. B06

LENGTH: 354 words

HEADLINE: Jesse Jackson Shakedowns?; Questions about finances

BODY:
   First there was the mistress, now the shakedowns. No, not Bill Clinton. This time it's his friend and moral advisor, Jesse Jackson.

   It turns out that the Rev. Jackson's embarrassing confession about fathering a child out of wedlock with a former member of his staff was just the beginning. IRS complaints forced him to open the books on his Rainbow - PUSH coalition and other non-profits in his organization, and now he's embarrassed again - or should be.

   The Rev. Jackson is being accused of using boycotts and threats of racial intimidation to extract cash jackpots for himself, his organization, friends and family.

   The Rev. Jackson - like the Clintons - is blaming a vast right-wing conspiracy. It's true that the complaints were filed by conservative groups, the National Legal and Policy Center and the American Conservative Union. But the complaints exposed ethical and legal problems that point to the Rev. Jackson:

   His tax returns did not report staffers who made more than $ 50,000, including his former mistress.

   He took six-figure contributions from the Democratic Party for supposedly non-partisan activities by non-profits that are not allowed to get involved in politics.

   And the payoffs from corporations look a lot like "protection money." Pay up, or we'll ruin your reputation with boycotts and accusations of racism.

   Two of the Rev. Jackson's sons obtained a lucrative beer distributorship from Anheuser-Busch, which was targeted by a Jesse Jackson boycott. Neither son had any experience in the beer business.

   The Houston Chronicle reported, "Jackson released financial statements for two of the four organizations that he controls which showed corporate sponsorships and grants made up at least $ 12 million of the groups' $ 15 million in year 2000 revenues."

   Many of the listed donors were companies that were boycotted or threatened by the Rev. Jackson. He insists there was no "quid pro quo" - sounding just like a certain former president.

   The IRS should take a closer look. The first glance at the Rev. Jackson's finances has raised more questions than it answered.