Honesty’s in Flower, and Quick to Offend

Given the Moriarty corruption scandal and all that it has done to besmirch California politicians, it is no wonder that honesty is big these days. Think, for instance, of how Assembly Speaker Willie Brown has made room on his leadership team for Assemblyman Thomas M. Hannigan (D-Fairfield), a man noted around the state Capitol for his personal integrity.

But maybe things have gone too far. How else explain the potential political star who claims to be so pure that even to suggest that he might be influenced by campaign contributors is akin to a punishable crime?

The potential star in this case is Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento). A seemingly earnest and intelligent man, Matsui is a proven fund-raiser and vote-getter in his district. He has performed ably as a member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee.

As ambitious as anyone, Matsui now is considering a run for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate next year, and nobody would deny that he has a chance. And if another Asian-American, Secretary of State March Fong Eu, decides not to run, his chances could only improve.

But first Matsui might want to reevaluate his reaction to a recent move by a Sacramento lobbying group.

The story involves Sacramento attorney Karen S. Russo. Employed by a law firm that handles many flood-control issues, Russo also serves as the secretary to a group of land developers and others who would like to see government spend a billion dollars or so to build the Auburn Dam.

Authorized in 1965, the dam was to have been built on the American River northeast of Sacramento. But earthquake fears halted construction 12 years ago, and the project has been stalled ever since.

Last year, however, an intense winter storm caused some flooding in and around Sacramento, and showed that large sections of prime development land might not be so developable after all. As a result, a booster group called the Auburn Dam Council was formed to get the project going again.

But Matsui believes that the project would be a waste of funds. Because he represents much of the area that would be affected by the dam, his opposition is a crucial obstacle.

Obviously the members of the Auburn Dam Council would like to change Matsui’s mind. But who should approach the congressman? Whose words would he be most likely to heed? As aware as anyone of the importance of campaign contributions to a political career, Russo examined Matsui’s campaign-disclosure forms to see who had been contributing to him. And, lo, she found many council members on Matsui’s list.

Thus last month at one of the council’s Friday morning breakfasts she proposed the obvious. As secretary, Russo reported in her minutes of the meeting: “She suggested that a very effective means of dealing with Matsui’s objections were to have his financial supporters contact him and express the need for the Auburn Dam and hope to neutralize his position if not change it.”

To Russo, this was politics as usual. To Matsui, it was “somewhat sleazy” and “undermines the whole democratic process.” “My support or opposition is not for sale,” he fumed in an interview with the Sacramento Bee.

Furthermore, he indicated that he might ask the State Bar to look into Russo’s behavior--the suggestion being that it was not entirely ethical.

In a sense, of course, Matsui was correct. By recommending that campaign contributors call him, Russo was suggesting that money makes a difference. True, she didn’t say that his vote was for sale, but her words could be stretched into such.

What Matsui forgot is that would-be vote-buyers represent only half the political equation. The other half is represented by politicians who constantly hustle the special interests for funds.

Matsui, for instance, reported receipts of $415,000 in contributions last year, most of which came from doctors, bankers, private utilities, labor unions and other special-interest groups. That amounts to about $1,100 a day, day in and day out, 365 days a year.

Now, the people who give that kind of money aren’t stupid. They contribute because they want to influence Matsui’s vote, and he takes their money knowing it.

Matsui also takes speaking fees from special-interest groups. Unlike campaign contributions, this is money that he may pocket. Russo perhaps could have been more diplomatic and suggested that the Auburn Dam Council invite Matsui to address a few of its breakfast meetings at $2,000 a pop (which is what, for instance, the California Beer Wholesalers paid for a Matsui speech).

A spokesman for Matsui declined to answer questions about the Russo incident, saying that the congressman himself would call to reply. He didn’t.

Perhaps Matsui now believes that the less said about the incident, the better. But perhaps he has also learned that old saw about people who live in glass houses not casting the first stone.