Scope of Young Trial Sends Political Jitters Into Capitol

As a major political scandal was unfolding at the state Capitol last year, a boastful Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said the investigation into the corrupt activities of former fireworks manufacturer W. Patrick Moriarty was little more than “a newspaper story” that would not result in any indictments of past or present legislators.

“I think the Moriarty thing has just about petered out completely,” he declared.

Now, however, the powerful San Francisco Democrat has toned down the rhetoric and is making few predictions. With the mail fraud trial of former Assemblyman Bruce Young (D-Norwalk) under way, the charismatic Speaker--considered to have one of the sharpest minds around the Capitol--is having trouble remembering details of his own campaign fund-raising activities.

“I don’t recall,” Brown said earlier this month in response to reporters’ questions about evidence suggesting that he had sought Young’s help in obtaining $18,500 in campaign contributions from Moriarty, founder of Pyrotronics Inc. of Anaheim, once one of the largest fireworks manufacturing firms in the nation.

Once little more than a distant worry for most state legislators, Young’s trial is giving many of them jitters--particularly because Young’s defense team initially said it might call to the stand more than a third of the state Legislature.

“Some people are as twitchy as Twiggy at a fat farm,” said Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Glendora), who is among those who might be called.

‘A Quorum in the Courtroom’

Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights) quipped: “Is it illegal for the Legislature to meet outside of Sacramento? We may well have a quorum (of both houses) in the courtroom.”

Campbell, who also is expected to testify, carried a controversial 1982 bill on Moriarty’s behalf that would have prevented cities from outlawing “safe and sane” fireworks. That bill, now a key issue in the trial, was vetoed by former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Young, 40, who helped push that legislation, is charged with failing to report income from Moriarty and from a cable television company, whose legislation he also championed. Moriarty is now serving a seven-year prison sentence as the result of his own conviction on corruption charges and is cooperating with investigators looking into activities of Young and other legislators.

Presented by Young’s lawyers with the lengthy witness list, U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian warned the defense team that he will not tolerate turning the trial into a “circus” and declared that “the legislative process or the lobbying process is not on trial here.”

Young’s attorneys subsequently said the witness list is long because they had not had time to pare it down and that it would be “substantially reduced” before the defense begins its case. They indicated that only a few legislators actually may be called.

But regardless of how many legislators are called, Young’s lead attorney, George Walker, does say his focus will be on how the Legislature operates, including how lobbying is done and campaign money is raised. “My thrust is going to be, what is the propriety of lobbying and espousing your bill,” he said. “What efforts are used by lobbyists? There are trade-offs. There is an arrogance to legislators, a get-even aspect. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”

It is the fear that defense attorneys may probe well beyond Young’s activities that worries some people around the Capitol, particularly those deeply involved in making and influencing the course of legislation.

“I don’t know what they are trying to prove,” said James D. Garibaldi, the dean of the Capitol lobbyists, who has been trying to influence legislation in Sacramento for more than 40 years. “Just because Billy the Kid held up a bank, it’s no reason that anyone else should do it too.

“It is not a question of the system (being on trial). The question is how a lobbyist operates within the rules and regulations laid down by the system. It sounds like someone is saying lobbyists are bad boys and you are prosecuting them under the bad boys statute. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Declines to Comment

This week, the prosecution, which already has called 13 witnesses, will begin rolling out its political big guns, starting with Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Benicia), and Assemblywoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). Their hope is to shed light on Young’s lobbying activities on behalf of the fireworks bill.

Roberti, a major opponent of the bill, has refused to comment publicly before he gives his testimony. But, in an attempt to show that he, at least, has done nothing improper, Roberti last week released a packet of letters and press releases documenting his efforts to defeat the bill and, later, to have it vetoed.

The packet, however, also included a notation that Roberti received a $2,500 campaign “laundered” contribution through a Moriarty-connected construction company.

It is largely through similar contributions that Speaker Brown has found himself drawn into the case.

In all, The Times has determined that more than $153,000 in campaign contributions were funneled to dozens of California political figures by Moriarty, who used associates to make the donations. All of the politicians have denied knowing the real source of the money at the time it was given. The list also includes Gov. George Deukmejian and Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy.

Prosecutors introduced a letter from Young to Moriarty in which Young claimed that Brown--who as Speaker is responsible for collecting money for Democratic campaigns--asked Young to obtain $18,500 in contributions from Moriarty for six Assembly candidates. Five of the six who received the money said they had no idea of the true source, while a sixth, Assemblyman Burt Margolin of Los Angeles, returned a $7,500 check after learning from Young’s staff that it was connected to Moriarty’s fireworks firm.

Brown’s Position Firm

Asked in early January about the alleged request for money, Brown said he “wouldn’t remember specifically anything of that nature.” Pressed again last week for details, his press secretary, Susan Jetton, said: “He said what he said the other day and he has nothing to add to it.”

When asked whether Brown knew the request was being made to Moriarty, Young’s lawyers said they had “no idea” whether Brown knew or not. Young’s only response at a news conference was to laugh when asked about Brown’s role. However, according to one source close to the defense, Young is expected, if he testifies, to say that Brown told him specifically to ask Moriarty for the $18,500 contribution in 1982.

It is clear from the reluctance of Brown and other legislators to discuss the case that few in Sacramento are looking forward to this trial.

At the very least, if the trial continues to focus on fund-raising and lobbying activities, there will be a spate of bad publicity for those like the Speaker who are largely responsible for the way the system of raising money and dispensing favors operates.

Even before the specter of the Moriarty scandal surfaced, legislators, including Brown, were under heavy criticism for the runaway cost of elections that has made the Legislature appear like the handmaiden of moneyed special interests. With Young’s defense team seemingly intent on making his activities appear routine, there is little question that some unsavory aspects of political life in Sacramento will come to light.

Known for His Skill

One top Capitol lobbyist, who declined to be identified, recalled that Young’s nickname was “Juicy Brucie,” because of his reputation for being able to squeeze large campaign contributions out of special interest groups.

In addition to the issue of laundered campaign funds, there is the matter prosecutors so far have chosen not to raise--reports that Moriarty provided prostitutes to several lawmakers, including Young. The prosecutors already have raised Moriarty’s offer to legislators of special “two-for-one” investments in real estate projects he controlled.

With that as a backdrop, many of the lawmakers listed as potential defense witnesses have publicly been trying to distance themselves from Young, Moriarty and any potentially embarrassing revelations.

“I feel like an innocent victim,” said Assemblyman Rusty Areias (D-Los Banos), one of the six legislators who received a $3,000 “laundered” Moriarty contribution requested by Young in Brown’s name.

“I’m not nervous. I haven’t anything to hide. I have never met Mr. Moriarty. I had no opportunity to vote on the (fireworks) bill.” Areias did not assume his Assembly seat until December, 1982, after the fireworks bill already passed.

Several other legislators on the defense team’s witness list noted that they voted against the fireworks bill and are indignant at being dragged into the trial.

“I can’t imagine why I’d be asked,” said Assemblywoman Marian LaFollette (R-Northridge). “I opposed the Moriarty fireworks bill all the way and I can’t remember anyone every lobbying me on it. This is a waste of time and a waste of print.”

One assemblyman who did vote for the fireworks bill, Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne), declared that he would “be dumb” not to tell the truth when he is called to testify. “I’ve got nothing to hide,” he protested. “I never sold a vote.”

Despite all the breast beating, Assembly Minority Leader Pat Nolan (R-Glendale) said he does not take the defense request for a long parade of witnesses too seriously. “This is just a laundry list,” he said, “and I just think it is part of litigation games.”

Times staff writer William Overend contributed to this story.