Car-Theft Project Foes Paid $29,000 to Assemblymen Who Killed Bill

Opponents of a bill to establish a $1-million pilot program to track stolen cars in Los Angeles County say they have paid at least $29,000 to legislators who helped defeat the measure.

The legislation, carried by Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia), had sailed through the Senate and was expected to win easy passage in the Assembly in late August until the opposition succeeded in gutting the measure.

A month later, manufacturers of auto burglar alarms--who viewed the proposal as a potential threat to their livelihood--began to pump money into the campaigns of lawmakers who sided with them in the Assembly, according to interviews with contributors and lobbying and campaign reports filed with the secretary of state.

The Assembly action shows that a well-financed lobbying campaign can succeed in putting the brakes on a bill--even at the eleventh hour. Davis said the effort demonstrates “that the self-interest of the auto burglar alarm people is dictating public policy.”

Chatsworth Firm

The lobbying drive against the bill was spearheaded by Ze’ev Drori, president of Clifford Electronics in Chatsworth. In its report to the state, Clifford said that on Sept. 26 the firm contributed $8,950 to six lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco). It reported paying another $2,500 to capital lobbyist Bernard Teitelbaum to fight the bill.

“I decided that I felt I would like to express my support for people who have supported our position,” Drori said. “We never promised anything to anyone, and they never promised anything to us.”

Gino Musolino, executive vice president of Palo Alto-based Techne Electronics, attended a meeting organized by Drori to discuss strategy on defeating the bill. He said his company has agreed in principal to contribute to the effort, explaining that campaign contributions are “one of the ways” of getting heard in Sacramento.

The lobbying effort was organized in August after Drori saw a news story about the Davis bill. Among other things, Drori talked to legislators, hired a lobbyist and mobilized auto burglar alarm firms to contribute to campaigns.

Favoritism Charged

At the heart of the controversy over the bill was an assertion by Drori and other auto burglar alarm firms that Davis’ proposal was tailor-made for LoJack Corp., a Braintree, Mass., firm that sells the high-tech equipment.

Under the proposal, the Los Angeles Police Department and Sheriff’s Department would have used radio transmissions, high-tech electronics and computers to find stolen cars by activating transmitters that owners had placed in their vehicles.

The proposal was modeled after a system employed in Massachusetts that uses LoJack equipment.

C. Michael Daley, LoJack’s president, saying he believes his system is the best in the country at tracking cars, denied, however, that the Davis bill was designed to benefit LoJack.

“It was a generic bill,” he said Friday. “We didn’t lobby the bill. We didn’t pay any campaign contributions,” in part because the measure was conceived by the police department, which pushed for its passage, he said.

Strategy Planned

However, Drori retained lobbyist Teitelbaum and contacted other manufacturers of auto burglar alarms to alert them to the bill. In late summer--it’s unclear exactly when--a few of the firms met to plot strategy, including making campaign contributions.

Drori said his concern sprang from his belief that the Davis measure “all but dictated a monopoly in favor of a single company.”

“The contributions were not just from me or the company, but they were from other companies” also, Drori said.

Rand Mueller, president of Michigan-based Code Alarm, said his firm also contributed $10,000. He said he believes the money was channeled to legislators whom Drori identified as opposing the Davis bill. Drori “suggested that we contribute to them,” Mueller said.

Rudy T. Sanders, president of Vehicle Security Electronics of Chatsworth, confirmed that his firm contributed $10,000.

A complete accounting of these funds will not be available until next year, when legislators file their next campaign statements. So far, no San Fernando Valley-area legislators are among the recipients of the contributions.

Michael Galizio, the Speaker’s chief of staff, said Friday there is no connection between contributions and “the way any member of the Legislature votes.”

“I don’t think anybody expects to buy people’s votes with campaign contributions,” Galizio said. “Campaign contributions are part of the political process.”

The reports show that Clifford Electronics has given Brown $2,000; Assemblymen William P. Baker (R-Danville), $1,500; Frank Hill (R-Whittier), $1,500; Phil Isenberg (D-Sacramento), $1,500; Charles W. Quackenbush (R-Saratoga), $1,200; and Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles), $1,250.

In addition, Baker reported receiving $1,000 from Vehicle Security Electronics. Assemblyman Chris Chandler (R-Yuba City) and Assemblyman Rusty Areias (D-Los Banos) each reported receiving $500 from the same firm.

Opponents of the bill are concerned that the police may try to revive the proposal when the Legislature reconvenes today. In fact, the Los Angeles Police Department established a panel of experts to review systems to track stolen cars. The group is about to make a report.

Meantime, Davis, a former Los Angeles police chief, said he is considering whether to reintroduce the proposal.

In August, Davis complained that colleagues who opposed the measure feared approving legislation that would benefit a single company because a federal sting operation had raised questions about similar bills. They voted 52 to 10 to delay the program until June, 1990, and to require the winning bidder to give other companies access to patented material used to track the stolen vehicles.

In a recent interview, Davis expressed anger about Drori’s lobbying, saying the contributions show him “this is a conspiracy” by his critics to prevent the tracking system from being tested. “That was the best job of sabotage I’ve ever seen,” he said.