Lawmakers Using Electronic Medium to Get Message Out

Shortly after state lawmakers wound up an emotional debate last year over motorcycle safety, a smattering of cable television subscribers in Southern California were given the opportunity to view a “documentary” aimed at the heart of the issue.

There was Richard E. Floyd, the tough-talking Democratic assemblyman and author of a bill that would require cyclists to wear crash helmets speaking to an audience filled with threatening-looking bikers, showing concern over needless deaths and waste of taxpayer money. The program had a slick, newsy appearance. Yet it was not produced by a news crew. It was filmed, edited and distributed by the Assembly’s Democratic caucus, financed by taxpayers, ostensibly to heighten public understanding of the safety issue.

But for Floyd, who was facing a tough reelection challenge, the program also had political benefits. Several cable television systems in his South Bay district agreed to air the video before last November’s general election and Floyd personally carried copies to community meetings where they were shown to potential supporters.

‘Like Any Press Release’

“The Hells Angels had advertising in every biker magazine in the nation saying that because of the helmet bill they were going to take me out,” complained Floyd, who ultimately won reelection by a wide margin. Although he maintains it is impossible to know what impact the video ultimately had on his election, Floyd added: “It’s like any press release I do. Which one of us is going to do something that isn’t political in nature? There’s a thin line here.”

The Floyd video is just one product of a continuing technological experiment that is stirring controversy and interest among lawmakers frustrated by their inability to attract television coverage and looking for new ways to communicate with voters.

Since Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan left the governor’s office, electronic news teams have been on a retreat from Sacramento. When San Francisco television station KRON recalled its crew last November, the capital was left without a single out-of-town television news bureau.

On top of that, voters in approving the campaign finance initiative, Proposition 73, last June did away with the Legislature’s most time-honored way of communicating with constituents--the publicly financed district newsletter.

Now, Floyd and other lawmakers are learning their way around these obstacles by producing their own television spots and radio feeds and beaming speeches and press conferences to a statewide audience via orbiting satellites.

Live TV Coverage

As partisan and controversial as some of these efforts have been, they also may be setting the stage for live, televised coverage of legislative deliberations.

In recent weeks, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown introduced legislation that would permit permanent placement of television cameras on the floors of both houses. Brown and other legislative leaders also have opened discussions with a private group that is promoting a system modeled on the national C-SPAN network, which broadcasts congressional debates to more than 22 million viewers.

“The more the constituents understand, the better it is for us up here,” said Michael Galizio, Brown’s chief of staff and director of the Speaker’s Office of Majority Services. Added one Democratic source who asked to remain anonymous: “We want the people to be able to make up their minds for themselves without being filtered through . . . cynical newspaper columnists.”

But some critics maintain that the C-SPAN proposal and the Legislature’s other television efforts are smoke screens to hide the real goal--using taxpayer money and the power of television to further the political fortunes of incumbent lawmakers.

“If you ban mass mailings they are still going to want to communicate with voters and they will try to come up with ways that are legitimate, anything from a video press release to a talk show to town hall forums,” said Richard Temple, chief consultant to the Assembly Republican caucus.

Republicans Criticize

Assembly GOP Leader Ross Johnson, who co-authored the June campaign funding initiative, described the Democrats’ video experiments as “certainly violative of the spirit of Proposition 73.” Added Johnson: “The people were saying in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want taxpayer money used for political puffery or as adjuncts to campaigns.”

These charges worry Assembly Democratic leaders, who have been locked in an increasingly bitter war of words with their Republican counterparts.

Assembly Democratic floor leader Tom Hannigan of Fairfield said he cannot understand all the fuss, particularly since the video productions were under way long before the campaign initiative appeared on the ballot.

“We did it in response to a situation that has developed over the years that virtually all the television networks and other news bureaus have exited Sacramento,” said Hannigan, who compared the videos to press releases or newspaper columns written by legislators. “I don’t think the Republicans are precluded from doing the same thing. It’s just part of the political process.”

Reagan Years

Television news reporting at the Capitol was at its zenith during the Reagan years, when a dozen radio and television stations maintained bureaus here. But while the number of print journalists has continued to rise--there are more than 90 credentialed print reporters covering the Capitol today--television budget cutbacks and a belief that viewers have little interest in the subject touched off an exodus.

The last Los Angeles station to maintain a full-time bureau in Sacramento was KNBC-TV, which closed its office more than five years ago. Given the high cost of sophisticated cameras and satellite equipment, “no one can afford to cover the Capitol,” said Steve Mallory, KNBC-TV’s former Sacramento reporter.

As television interest in the Capitol waned, legislative aides began studying techniques used by Congress, which for years has provided television recording studios for its members.

Satellite Equipment

The House and Senate each purchased expensive satellite equipment to enable members to tape interviews in Washington and instantly transmit them to their home districts in time for the local evening news. The national party organizations, meanwhile, stepped up their efforts, providing their own crews to film press conferences and speeches for use by hometown news producers.

When an earthquake hit the Whittier area in 1987, Assembly Democrats decided it was time to do the same. For the first time, a satellite beamed Speaker Brown’s image to Southern California television stations, and viewers were provided emergency information and a special 800 number to call for earthquake brochures.

“We got hundreds of calls, so we knew we were on to something,” said Brown chief of staff Galizio. Later, the Speaker used the same technique to broadcast his own “State of the Legislature” address live from the Assembly chambers and to get television news play for a comprehensive health insurance bill he introduced.

Television Feeds

Soon the Democratic caucus was producing short television feeds for news stations, stepping up its efforts to get members on radio and taping half-hour documentaries for cable viewers on subjects ranging from Floyd’s helmet bill to mental health legislation and insurance.

No one has calculated the cost because the videos are produced by Assembly employees with equipment purchased over the years. Although the production staffs have been careful to play down overt partisanship, all of these productions present an uncritical view of Democrats and make little or no mention of Republicans.

Among them is a cable television video shot last year featuring Assemblyman Dom Cortese (D-San Jose), who chaired the Select Committee on Child Care, discussing his efforts to pass a 15-bill package of child-care legislation. The footage is strictly soft-sell, focusing on personal stories of working families having difficulty finding adequate day care for their children and praising companies in Cortese’s district for establishing their own child-care programs.

No Mention of Costs

But the program makes no mention of the potential state costs of financing these programs, nor budgetary constraints that could result in other services being curtailed.

“It was my intent in taking on the committee in the first place to take the whole issue on the road,” Cortese said. “None of that was intended to be partisan.”

The Senate, by contrast, has taken steps to avoid partisan pitfalls by providing equal access to Republicans as well as Democrats. The taping is done by a private firm under a $20,000 contract and consists mainly of short “sound bites” from Senate members commenting on legislation or issues of the day.

“There is simply a recognition that the press release has been eclipsed by the electronic news media,” said Cliff Berg, executive officer of the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees the productions. “We give local stations some footage to play around with. They have the ability to edit it and work it into their stories. If it is effective and it seems as though the material will be used, it’s in our interest to do that.”

Clips Refused

The big network-owned or affiliated stations in Southern California have generally refused to air these clips. But stations in smaller cities with limited budgets--and limited news to report--are frequent users, according to Cathy Humphrey, who oversees the Senate contract.

Both houses are still evaluating the results of their early experiments. But there is growing sentiment inside the Legislature and among those who work closely with it that the best way to enlighten voters and keep partisan politics to a minimum is through unedited, gavel-to-gavel coverage.

In that light, legislative leaders have begun talks with the California Channel, a private, nonprofit group that is proposing to establish a California version of C-SPAN.

Headed by Tracy Westen, an assistant professor at USC’s Annenberg School of Communications, and Paul Koplin, former marketing director for the liberal New Perspectives Quarterly, the group plans to use satellites to beam Senate and Assembly debates to more than 380 California cable systems. Eventually they expect to expand coverage to include major issues that come before city councils, testimony before the state Supreme Court and analysis of political news.

Preventing Partisanship

Backers say the system would prevent partisanship from creeping into legislative coverage.

“It’s not clear that the Legislature ought to get involved in the television programming business,” Westen said. “Do you want the Legislature interviewing itself? That’s why having an independent organization is so important.”

The project has the backing of cable industry executives and several influential business leaders. But it still faces formidable political and financial obstacles.

The Legislature would have to spend $600,000 to $700,000 to wire and equip the Capitol for a minimal system and well over $1 million to provide coverage of all significant hearings. The project’s private backers also would have to raise an estimated $1 million for start-up costs and about $1.5 million each year to operate the system.

‘Very Costly’

“It’s very costly, so we have to weigh the costs against the benefits,” said Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Carmel), one of several lawmakers pushing for television coverage. “There’s been a lot of discussion among members but no decision yet.”

Questions also have been raised about the level of public interest and whether cable systems ultimately will pay to carry the programming as they do now for C-SPAN. But a two-year feasibility study due to be released next month by the group contends that more than 50% of television viewers are dissatisfied with their current sources of news and more than 70% said they would be at least somewhat likely to watch a California version of C-SPAN.