Little Chance for Reform Bills This Year, Speaker Says

The political climate is so charged by inept handling of the proposed 50% congressional pay raise that there is little chance that California lawmakers will adopt a “reform” this year giving them higher salaries in return for a ban on outside income, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said Wednesday.

Brown, in a breakfast session with The Times Sacramento bureau, contended that a salary increase for state lawmakers--from the present $41,816 to what judges earn, roughly $80,000--must be a component of any reform of legislative conduct.

“I don’t think you can effectively block people from earning a living on the outside unless you pay them a living on the inside,” Brown declared. But, he added: “I don’t think this is the year to be talking about salary increases. (House Speaker) Jim Wright and the people in Congress so screwed up the arena that no one can play in that field.”

In a lively and wide-ranging discussion of the Legislature’s tarnished image, Brown said the chief reform he envisions this year is a limit on the number of bills that can be introduced by each member. His intent, he said, is to shift to the congressional system under which major legislation is crafted by committees, thereby insulating lawmakers from narrow bills promoted by their close friends, contributors and constituents.

On a personal note, Brown raised the issue of his flashy life style and said he is convinced that he has always been the target of law enforcement investigations into legislative conduct, including the current FBI probe of Capitol corruption.

To dramatize the point, he detailed a purportedly exhaustive investigation by one unnamed law enforcement agency into how he obtained an expensive Porsche Turbo. Investigators, he said, were convinced that it was purchased from an El Cajon drug dealer.

“My assumption,” Brown said, “is that you don’t come over and try to conduct an investigation at the Capitol without, in one manner or another, accepting the common wisdom that I’m (involved) in it.”

On other subjects, Brown said:

A poll of Assembly Democrats showed majority support for legislation to ban assault weapons, but that was before the National Rifle Assn. “turned the heat on.” While Brown said he supports the ban, he will not pressure his colleagues because “you can’t do that on something so politically volatile. . . . Rationality goes out the window when a person is thinking about reelection.”

Democrats, many of whom supported Proposition 98’s requirement to spend more of the state budget on schools, are now upset that the successful ballot measure is siphoning money from other programs. But Brown said he does not regret his support of the measure because it motivated teacher groups to help elect Democrats to the Legislature. “My friends needed the help,” he said, “and I gave it to them.”

Brown and a number of his Assembly colleagues have pressed publicly for sweeping legislative reforms this session in the wake of a three-year FBI sting, in which federal agents, posing as owners of phony companies, sought legislative help for special-interest bills. The measures were passed by both houses of the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian, who had been tipped off by agents.

Would Not Have Passed

Brown contended that the FBI-inspired legislation, carried by Democrat Gwen Moore of Los Angeles, would not have passed if there had been a limit on bills and if most legislation was crafted by committees instead of individual members.

“Things like rip-offs would not slip through the net as easily,” Brown said. Why do members carry such bills? Replied Brown: “We are contacted by friends and relatives, small business people and small contractors who say, ‘This is my problem and you can solve it.’ ”

By limiting a legislator’s ability to introduce bills, he added, “you probably reduce the opportunity for members to allow their greed to screw around with their judgement.”

In his own case, Brown has said that an FBI operative tried to buy two tickets to a fund-raiser by slipping $1,000 in cash under the door of an aide. The FBI has denied it. But Brown, who is noted for his showy, high-spending habits, said Wednesday he is convinced that the FBI was intent on setting him up.

“I don’t want to appear to suffer from (a delusion) that people are watching me,” Brown said, “but my assumption is, as long as I’ve been in public life, from the moment (the press) began writing about me, and because of my life style and who I am, and because of my color, I’ve constantly been the subject of (law enforcement) conversations.

“My guess is when they were around here looking for the dope caucus, they automatically assumed I was a member. I guarantee you that. I’d bet you they’d assume I’m automatically a member of anything that represents an on-the-edge life style.”

No law enforcement agency has ever disclosed that it was investigating drug use in the Capitol, and Brown did not elaborate on the source of his information other than to say, “I have enough friends in various operations.”

But he did explain in some detail the purported 1986 investigation into his purchase of the jet black Porsche Turbo.

Brown said he bought the car for less “than the normal market price” from an El Cajon auto dealer, whom he described as a close friend. As part of the deal, Brown said he was required to display a license plate frame with the name of the dealership.

According to Brown, investigators, whom he declined to name, assumed that the car was purchased from a drug dealer because El Cajon “is close enough to the (Mexican) border and why would (Brown) be driving a car like this?”

“I’ll bet there are files open for me at every FBI office around the state,” he said.