Bane’s Sales Pitch Under Fire Again : Valentine’s Dinner Push Leaves Sour Taste for Some

Heavy hands rather than sweethearts once again characterize the sales techniques of Assemblyman Tom Bane’s telephone solicitors for his annual $500-a-person Valentine’s Day dinner, several contributors and prospective donors say.

A politically active attorney who doesn’t contribute to Bane compared the persistence of the Tarzana Democrat’s ticket-sellers to “a collection agency.” A veteran lobbyist said their approach is tantamount to “strong-arming for money.”

And a savings and loan executive said: “They are tenacious as hell. They call back and back and back.”

The three, as well as others who agreed to discuss Bane’s fund-raising techniques, did so on the condition that they not be identified. Each one interviewed said they were fearful of antagonizing such a powerful lawmaker.

Each February for the past 15 years or so, Bane has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by asking lobbyists, business owners, friends and political supporters to be his Valentine’s donors. He expects 500 patrons to join him for dining, dancing and speech-making Tuesday at the Century Plaza Hotel.

Increased Scrutiny

The hard-sell tactics of Bane’s solicitors are nothing new, say those familiar with them. What has changed, however, is the increased scrutiny of campaign fund-raising techniques in the wake of the August disclosure of a three-year FBI investigation into corruption in the state Capitol.

Bane has not been identified as a target of the FBI sting and none of those interviewed for this story accused him or his ticket-sellers of breaking any laws. But lobbyists, lawmakers and business owners told The Times in recent weeks that the veteran lawmaker’s fund-raisers have achieved renown in political circles as being unusually high-pressured--approaching the ethical edge.

In response, Bane said neither he nor those who represent him have done anything improper.

“Their instructions are not to pressure in any way, shape or form,” he said of the solicitors. “They don’t need to pressure. . . . If anybody’s been pressured into giving, please advise me, and I’ll see that their money will be refunded.”

He acknowledged that he has received occasional complaints but said they proved unfounded when he investigated them. Insisting that he would not penalize anyone for publicly criticizing him, he vowed that if told the identities of those who complained to The Times, he would look into those allegations as well.

Even though he has a solidly Democratic district that overwhelmingly reelects him every two years, Bane maintains that, to remain politically safe, he must raise huge sums of money to prepare for a potential election challenge.

His five or six solicitors are overseen by his wife, Marlene, a professional fund-raiser who has raised millions of dollars for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), with whom Bane is closely allied. Bane said his wife hires, trains and organizes his solicitors, but she neither makes any calls herself nor is paid for her role in his campaign. She has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as past criticism for arranging Brown’s dinners.

Some Democrats have complained that her solicitors will badger potential ticket-buyers to contribute to the Brown dinner--even after the person has turned them down. Marlene Bane, 55, acknowledged in an interview last year that it was possible that her solicitors made repeat calls to reluctant donors. But “we don’t threaten or strong-arm,” she said.

Her husband said solicitors for his dinner are told to be persistent in getting by nay-saying secretaries but not to pester a potential contributor who had declined an overture.

Bane, whose 10 terms rank him second in Assembly seniority to Brown, has long been one of the Legislature’s most prolific fund-raisers.

$1.1 Million Raised

During his 1987-88 term, for example, he raised $1.1 million, according to his campaign statement filed this month. Many of his contributions were from special-interest groups whose bills go through Bane’s committees, particularly savings and loans, banks, other financial institutions, insurance firms, builders and developers.

Bane, 75, is chairman of the influential Rules Committee, which determines to which committee legislation is initially sent--a decision that can make or break the bill. He is also a member of the Finance and Insurance, and Housing and Community Development committees.

Bane said he does not use his legislative posts for fund-raising leverage. “I don’t participate in that,” he said of the solicitations. “I don’t know who they solicit.”

But an aide to a San Fernando Valley-area real estate developer said he was pointedly reminded of two key Bane committee assignments when he recently resisted a solicitor’s sales pitch.

He said the solicitor initially asked if he knew that Bane was “the very powerful chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee.”

Subsequently, the aide said, the woman also mentioned that Bane is a member of a committee involved with real estate and development, an apparent reference to the Housing and Community Development Committee.

“They were very arrogant and pushy,” the aide said. “They leave a bad taste in your mouth.”

Bane said the telephone solicitors might inform a prospective donor of his legislative posts if the person didn’t know who he was or what he did. He suggested that those who supplied this account as well as other critics were either Republicans seeking to discredit him or individuals trying to blame their unwillingness to contribute on the fund-raisers’ tactics.

State law makes it illegal to exchange a campaign contribution for specific legislative action, such as sponsoring or supporting a bill. But any solicitation that stops short of an explicit quid pro quo , or a promise for something in exchange, is legal.

Bane said he believes that his campaign money deters the Republican leadership from fielding a strong, well-financed challenge in his 40th District, which covers Van Nuys and parts of surrounding Valley communities.

Takes Nothing for Granted

An unsuccessful congressional bid in 1962 after two Assembly terms has prompted Bane to take nothing for granted ever since, say those who know him.

He has not won less than 60% of the vote in his district since his return to the Assembly in 1974. He won 73% of the vote against a poorly financed political unknown in November.

“I expect a serious reelection challenge” in 1990, Bane said during an interview in his spacious Capitol office last week. “This is their last chance to knock me off before reapportionment,” the redrawing of districts that will occur after the 1990 elections.

Assemblyman Pat Nolan of Glendale, who was Republican minority leader before the November election, acknowledged that every two years, the GOP assesses its prospects in Bane’s district as well as its chances in districts of other well-entrenched Democrats.

But Nolan said Bane’s effectiveness in keeping his name before voters and the loyalty of his Democratic voters has dissuaded the GOP from pumping its limited resources into a race against him. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 74,959 to 46,695 in the 40th District.

While Bane says he needs hefty campaign sums for political self-preservation, he has also used large amounts to help other Democrats allied with Brown win tough elections. Last year, Bane reported that he contributed about $200,000 in funds and campaign services to five Democratic Assembly candidates.

In addition, he gave lesser amounts to candidates ranging from Los Angeles school board members Alan Gershman and Roberta Weintraub to U.S. Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio).

Such transfers, however, will no longer be allowed under Proposition 73, a campaign reform measure passed by voters in June. But Bane maintains that other provisions of the proposition increase the need for concerted fund-raising efforts.

For the first time, the law limits contributions from individuals to $1,000 and from political action committees to $2,500 for each fiscal year. Legislators will also face restrictions on the amount of campaign money raised before Jan. 1 that can be used for future reelection bids.

Under an interpretation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, lawmakers would be able to use previous contributions that did not exceed the $1,000 and $2,500 contributor limits of Proposition 73. The rest of the funds would be considered “administrative” and could be used for office and travel expenses. Bane said he had $100,000 in his campaign account and $70,000 in administrative funds.

However, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge struck down the commission’s ruling last week, raising the possibility that Bane and others will have to return the money and begin their fund-raising from scratch.

Bane’s annual Valentine’s Day event has netted $250,000 or more in the past, but he said increased food and hotel costs are expected to bring the figure down to $100,000 this year.

It is an elegant affair. Tom and Marlene Bane mingle with guests in tuxedo and evening gown, respectively, amid festive Valentine’s decorations and favors. Brown and other legislative leaders generally stride to the podium to praise the Banes.

But, privately, not all Democrats are so complimentary.

Two party officeholders said they have heard numerous gripes from their contributors in recent weeks as well as in previous years about Bane’s fund-raisers.

The solicitors’ relentlessness and intensity prompted the complaints, one official said. “They just won’t take no for an answer.”

“A lot of my contributors won’t even take their phone calls, they’re so outraged at the way they operate,” said another elected official. “Lots of contributors say they feel they’re being extorted.”

Even one longtime lobbyist who described himself as a friend of the Banes said he was annoyed that he had received too many calls.

He said he had already purchased several thousand dollars worth of tickets for his corporate clients when he found a Bane solicitor on the phone again.

“That’s not all, is it?” the lobbyist said the woman asked him. “You’re going to end up buying a couple of tables.” He said he declined to do so.