By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 7, 1998; Page D01

On Capitol Hill, they are chortling, venting, no-commenting and wondering whether -- and when -- someone will come forward to collect the bounty.

"I'd like to commit adultery so I could get the $1 million," quipped Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). "But I'm single and have been single for 27 years."

Too bad, Alcee. Larry Flynt's $85,000 full-page ad in Sunday's Washington Post specifies "an adulterous sexual encounter," a la President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

You can call him the King of Smut or whatever is appropriate for the publisher of Hustler magazine. But Flynt has the guardians of the republic buzzing with his latest gambit: a hot line offering up to $1 million for "documentary evidence of illicit sexual relations" with a member of Congress or other high-ranking government official.

Good thing some lawmakers have a sense of humor. Or they'd be sweating, sweating, sweating. "That's some very easy money," attests one veteran House staffer.

One senior Democrat's response to Flynt's ad was to laughingly drape his arm around an especially striking female staffer and whisper: "Don't take the million bucks."

"I think most people think it's hilarious and see it for what it is," says Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). "It's a Larry Flynt gag. He's not to be taken seriously."

In fact, LaHood says, some of his colleagues were plotting how they could put a woman up to the task "and then split the proceeds." But is anyone worried that he or she could be the next Henry Hyde, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, who had a 30-year-old affair exposed by the Internet magazine Salon? After all, Flynt's magazine is paying.

"I don't think anybody is worried," says Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.), "but what they're worried about is it's another sign of our degradation as a country. I want young people to aspire to serve in this institution."

Lofty ideals aside, Flynt's gimmick has drawn quite a bit of repartee in the cloakrooms and elevators of the Capitol. At dinner Monday night, Fowler says, one of her colleagues suggested that there be a mass response to Flynt from the House. "All 435 of us should say, 'Yeah, we did it,' and collect the $1 million," says Fowler, quoting her colleague.

Maybe they don't take him seriously on Capitol Hill, but Flynt takes himself seriously. He is a free-speech maverick. And as he sees it, this latest crusade is designed to smoke out the hypocrites in Congress who are about to consider what punishment Clinton deserves for actions to cover up cheating on his wife.

"I feel the people who are going to be sitting in judgment who have not been truthful about similar activities in their own lives should recuse themselves," says Flynt. "What we are talking about is hypocrisy in its highest form. At the least, I want to let them know that it is about sex. People always lie about sex -- to get sex, during sex, after sex, about sex. I totally disagree that perjury is perjury. Lying about your private life, even under oath, is totally different." And that's the world according to Larry Flynt. Maybe he should be given some floor time.

"The ad itself is ridiculous," says Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. "It's a very unfortunate and disturbing linkage to Ken Starr's inquiry into the personal lives of politicians."

And having said that, Wexler adds: "I'm thinking about giving some information to one of the other members so they can turn me in and claim the reward."

Not everyone is having such fun with Flynt's little offer. Some don't even want to talk about it.

Sam Gejdenson, a Democratic House member from Connecticut, stops the question in midstream. "Your premise is that I could answer that question. But I can't. I came here to work on health care, pension security, educational opportunity, foreign policy. And all the other issues I'll leave to my colleagues and reporters to discuss."

Ditto for Rep. Jon Fox (R-Pa.). "It seems like it's something I won't comment on."

Why?

"It's not my area of expertise."

Which is a good thing.

"It has nothing to do with voting on taxes," explains Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), dismissing Flynt's provocation. "You understand the context in which that ad was run and you go on with your business."

And on that point, some conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats found they could agree.

The only thing worse than the ad itself, says Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), is the coverage of the ad.

"The fact that you're now writing about it shows that Larry Flynt has figured you guys in the media correctly. He knows how to play you for suckers."

Okay.

Staff writer Ann Gerhart contributed to this report.