Lobbyists and Lawmakers Are Working a System That’s Corrupt

SACRAMENTO

OK, so legislators are swarming all over lobbyists, grubbing for campaign money. The lobbyists are begging the legislators for votes on everything from taxes to tobacco.

Think there may be a link here? Not a quid pro quo, of course. That would be illegal. But some extra consideration for friends? The granting of favors that are likely to be returned? Some coalition building?

You’d have to be very naive not to recognize the nexus between special interest campaign contributions and legislators’ votes. Or a governor’s bill signings, for that matter.

When pols insist – as Gov. Gray Davis’ spokesmen do like robots – that “there’s absolutely no connection” between political donations and policy decisions, it damages their credibility and insults people’s intelligence.

Special interests give to get.

Democratic consultant Darry Sragow, who runs Assembly campaigns, acknowledges: “Contributions clearly do affect policy decisions

“Because if you vote against the interests of someone who has been a significant supporter, it only makes sense that person will become less of a significant supporter – or a politician’s worst nightmare, a significant opponent. You vote against those interests at your peril.”

The Capitol spin is that money only buys access. “Nonsense,” says reformer Bob Stern, president of the Institution for Governmental Studies. “These are rational people. It buys influence or they wouldn’t be wasting their money.”

Access leads to influence.

Longtime highways lobbyist David Ackerman says carting clients’ checks to legislators’ fund-raisers buys familiarity. That means, he says, “When you’re running down the hall after a legislator to get him to come back and vote, at least he knows who you are and knows you’re a player in the game.

“If you’re going to be here and play the game, [attending fund-raisers] is part of the rules.”

Legislators are holding more fund-raisers for several reasons: New contribution limits require more donors. Campaign costs constantly rise because of population growth. The campaign season has gotten longer because of the March primary. Term limits mean more turnover and competitive primaries.

Last Monday, The Times ran a front-page story reporting that legislators have been holding lots of fund-raising receptions in Sacramento. Lobbyists seeking budget favors have been showing up with $1,000 checks from their special interest clients. “It’s just out of hand,” said a lobbyist.

Such stories are a public service. People periodically need to be reminded about the seamier side of politics, behind the posturing and photo-ops.

But my mind – and the minds of others around the Capitol – immediately clicked back to that well-worn line of police Capt. Louis Renault (Claude Rains) in the movie “Casablanca”: “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here.”

Fund-raising in Sacramento? Lobbyists delivering checks to lawmakers? Simply scandalous!

The problem is that this is the system approved by the voters. It’s the system that’s corrupt. The politicians are playing by the rules they’ve been handed.

Granted, it’s a system largely devised by the political establishment – the lawmakers – even if sanctioned by the electorate.

But here’s the rub: You don’t hear a loud citizen outcry for the one thing that could significantly reduce the influence of special interest money on public policy. And that’s public financing of campaigns.

It’s a tough sell. Many voters can’t stomach their tax money being spent for some politician’s ugly TV ads.

The Public Policy Institute of California last year polled voters on how they thought political campaigns should be financed. Responses were mixed: Supporters’ money, 37%; public funds, 30%; the candidate’s own dollars, 28%.

No system is perfect.

L.A. city has a volunteer system of partial public financing with limits on contributions and spending. Small donors now “feel part of the system,” says LeeAnn Pelham, executive director of the L.A. City Ethics Commission.

But moneyed interests are going their separate ways to influence elections – and winners – by forming “independent expenditure committees.” They operate outside the system and “undermine” it, Pelham says.

Historically conservative Arizona now has a successful public financing system called Clean Money. It features near-100% public financing and low spending limits.

A California coalition of reformers intends to offer voters a similar proposal in 2006. The projected annual cost to taxpayers: $140 million – roughly $7 a year for each eligible voter.

You may have read it here before: Either the public buys the politicians or the private interests continue to.

Lawmakers and lobbyists will keep hitting up each other for money and votes. Both groups will win. The public won’t play – won’t pay – and too often it will lose.