Advisory Role Pushed by New Chief of FPPC

John Larson, new chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said Wednesday that he believes the political watchdog agency should spend more time advising politicians about the law and deemphasize its traditional role as an investigator of wrongdoing.

“People would rather have a traffic cop directing them than a detective following them,” said Larson, who was named to the post in February by Gov. George Deukmejian.

Larson, 61, former chief legal counsel for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, said he foresees a more conciliatory mission for the five-member FPPC, which was established in 1974 to regulate election campaign and lobbying activities

‘Make It Easier’

“We’ve got to go out and make it easier for people to follow the rules,” he said. “I may be naive, but I would like to see people run for office and not worry about getting a CPA and a lawyer.”

In his first substantive discussion about the changing role of the once-aggressive FPPC, Larson told The Times Sacramento Bureau during a breakfast interview:

- He feels strongly that legislators should receive higher salaries--probably tied to judges’ pay--but said the increased pay should be in exchange for a strict limit on speaking fees and other outside income. Referring to the influence of special-interest money, Larson said legislators “should be free to make their minds up (on issues) without looking for extra compensation.”

- He supports public financing for legislative campaigns, through an income tax checkoff system, but holds out little hope for any major reform this year. Even though several campaign reform proposals are making their way through the Legislature, he said, lawmakers “have shown no indication of wanting to do it. People complain about it, but it’s the system that they know.”

- It is wrong for commission members to use their posts as a springboard for elected office. In a jab at Dan Stanford, his predecessor who resigned to run for the GOP nomination for state controller, Larson said: “There is enough uneasiness on the part of elected officials on the role of the FPPC without the worry that the chairman is trying to get their job.”

Larson, a Republican from Long Beach whose friendship with Deukmejian dates back more than 30 years, developed his view of government’s role largely during the 10 years he served as Los Angeles County counsel, the supervisors’ chief lawyer.

In that appointed job, he advised his elected bosses on how to avoid legal pitfalls, while at the same time protecting the public’s interests. Before he left in 1983 to join a private law firm, Larson said his survival in the job stemmed from his decision “never to try a case in the newspapers.”

Tone Down Publicity

In similar fashion, Larson said he believes that the FPPC ought to tone down its method of publicizing prosecutions of those who violate campaign laws.

“I don’t believe that we necessarily need to have a press release every time we do something,” he said.

Although Larson insisted that there will be no cutback on enforcement actions, he said that aspect of the commission’s work needs less emphasis today than 12 years ago when voters, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals, approved the ballot proposition that created the commission. He said he would direct more of the commission’s resources to advising politicians rather than prosecuting them.

“It was felt by those who first got in that they would get publicity and would make themselves known by stressing their independence and by prosecutions,” he said. “That way people would know they were serious and that they were around. That may have been well and good at that point, but now everyone knows what the FPPC is and what its role is.”

The most important challenge facing the commission now, he added, is “to make it easier for people to follow the rules, not to change the rules.”

Changed Course

Stanford, Larson’s predecessor, made similar statements about the need to deemphasize enforcement when he was appointed to the job, even objecting to the word “watchdog” to describe the panel’s role in keeping politics honest. Later, however, Stanford changed course, embracing the “watchdog” label and taking credit for such acts as toughening enforcement of the Political Reform Act and the filing of major lawsuits against a number of local elected officials.

It was under Stanford, in fact, that the commission was at its most active in terms of enforcement activity, thanks in part to a doubling of its enforcement staff and the creation of a new enforcement division in 1984. In 1983, the first year of Stanford’s tenure, the commission collected $126,050 in fines, more than it had collected in its previous eight years of existence.

Recent major enforcement actions have included:

- A $1.2-million suit filed in 1984 against Roger Hedgecock, then the mayor of San Diego, who was later convicted on perjury and conspiracy charges. The suit is still pending.

- A $2.9-million civil suit, the commission’s largest to date, filed last year against William M. Bryan, then chairman of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, charging that he violated “virtually every major provision” of the state’s Political Reform Act.

- Fines of $13,000 in 1983 against former Assemblyman Bruce Young of Cerritos and $13,500 in 1984 against former Assemblyman Terry Goggin of San Bernardino for campaign law violations.

Larson said he is convinced that lawmakers’ decisions are influenced by large contributions needed to wage a successful campaign for legislative and statewide offices in California. But, he said, the system is unlikely to change as long as the U.S. Supreme Court holds that it is unconstitutional to limit how much of his own money a candidate can spend to win election.

“I think really an elected official cannot help but give way to big campaign contributions,” Larson said. “If I want to be elected, I’ve got to be receptive to the people who have shown they like my kind of politics and would support me.”

Larson said he favors a reform approach that would grant Californians income tax credits for making campaign contributions to legislative candidates. That is embodied in a proposal the commission ordered to be drafted in March but ultimately refused to endorse.

Reform Measures

At least three other campaign finance reform measures are under consideration, including a November ballot initiative and a wide-ranging bill introduced by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco).

Asked why the commission has refused to actively support one of the proposals, Larson said, “I don’t know that right now is the time to do it.” Given the poor reception the proposals have received from legislators, he said, the commission’s recommendation would carry little weight.

“Right or wrong,” he said, “if the FPPC puts in a bill, it will just go down the tubes with the other ones.”