After six years of controversy and moral speculation, former President Bill Clinton struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors — a deal that hurt his pride more than his pocketbook, local political experts said.To spare a possible indictment, Clinton agreed Friday to pay a $25,000 fine, surrender his Arkansas law license for five years and admit to giving false testimony about Monica Lewinsky in the 1998 Paula Jones deposition.”I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality,” Clinton said in a written statement Friday, during the waning hours of his presidency. “I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.”The deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray ends the $55 million investigation that began in 1994 with Whitewater.Richard Mansbach, professor of political science, said the hardest part of the agreement for Clinton is admitting to giving false testimony.”It’s not a lot of money, and though it is humiliating for him, I don’t think he planned on practicing law for the next five years,” Mansbach said. “The real punishment, in my judgment, is having to sign a document saying that he lied after years of denying it.”Mansbach said he thinks Clinton agreed to the deal only to put an end to the investigation, and whether he committed perjury is still unclear.”I don’t really regard it as a change in the facts,” Mansbach said. “Whether the former president fibbed is still a matter of interpretation.”Bryce Butler, chairman of the ISU College Republicans, said Clinton’s punishments were relatively light.”I think he got off pretty easy,” said Butler, sophomore in economics. “If it had been anyone else, I imagine they would have had their [law] license revoked. Any normal human being, if they perjured themselves, they would have been thrown in jail or fined heavily.”However, Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science, said he thinks Clinton “has been punished enough.””A lot of people think that, since he lied under oath and so on, that he should have had his license to practice law taken away, but I personally think … it is a fair deal,” Schmidt said. “He didn’t kill anybody; as far as we know he didn’t steal anything. … All he did is make some foolish decisions for someone is his position, and that having been discovered he made some other mistakes.”Schmidt said the plea deal will be better for Clinton’s legacy than the effects of an indictment for perjury or obstruction of justice.”It doesn’t help [his legacy], but it’s better than what would have happened otherwise, which would have been a big legal battle,” he said. “I think it was the best he could do. He can now go on and do other things.”Debbie Kattenhorn, president of the ISU Democrats, said the agreement was reached on “middle ground,” and the deal probably will not change the public’s view of the former executive.”I think, technically speaking, he could go practice [law] somewhere else,” said Kattenhorn, senior in political science. “I don’t think anyone really cares anymore. Everyone is going to say that he did have a tarnished record because of what led up to this, but I don’t think this, in itself, will do anything.”Mansbach said he doesn’t think Clinton would have been convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice.”There was never any chance [the special council’s investigation] would have led to a conviction,” Mansbach said. “What it would have done was waste a year and cost a lot of money.”Aaron Fister, president and producer of ISU9’s “Politics Unlimited,” said the deal was probably the best for everyone involved.”It probably worked out as well as it could for Clinton, [President George W.] Bush and the independent council,” said Fister, junior in management information systems. “On paper, they did something to him, but in reality, I don’t think they did anything.”