Trial Portrays a State Capitol Run on Cash and Cynicism : Corruption probe: Seeking the ‘green stuff’ in exchange for political support is common in the Legislature, evidence in the Montoya trial indicates.

For the last three weeks, witnesses in the corruption trial of Sen. Joseph B. Montoya have consistently portrayed the California Legislature as a place where money talks.

Testimony from lobbyists and former Capitol aides--as well as words from the mouths of legislators themselves--have depicted a system where the content of a bill is often less important than the prospect of personal gain for elected officials.

Aside from the growing evidence against Montoya on charges of extortion and racketeering, the federal court jury has heard frank discussion of payments to get legislation approved and a “little envelope” filled with “green stuff.”

Attorneys for Montoya have not yet had the opportunity to present their defense on the 12 counts of extortion, racketeering, bribery and money laundering facing the Whittier Democrat. But during their cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, they have begun laying the groundwork to prove that Montoya’s efforts to collect campaign contributions and honorariums were no different than the activities of other legislators.

Former aides to Montoya have testified that they were pressured to raise thousands of dollars from individuals who were seeking Montoya’s vote. One aide testified she was ordered to keep a ledger of her fund-raising efforts as part of her state job. And another former aide described how he and the senator received free kitchen appliances from a prominent Republican as Montoya sought to become a millionaire “any way he could.”

But among the most revealing pieces of evidence introduced so far by U.S. Atty. David Levi are two conversations tape-recorded by undercover informant John Shahabian, a Senate staff member, with Montoya and Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana) in June, 1988.

The tapes, sprinkled with obscenities, were played for the first time in public last week. The conversations include discussion of the efforts of three other elected officials to collect money in exchange for their votes. The officials are: then-Assembly Republican Leader Pat Nolan of Glendale, Assemblyman Frank Hill (R-Whittier) and then-Sen. Paul Carpenter (D-Cypress), now a member of the State Board of Equalization.

The three officials have been under investigation after a federal sting operation in which the FBI set up a dummy shrimp importing company and sponsored legislation that would help the firm obtain state bond financing. None of the three have been indicted.

Longtime Senate aide Shahabian was trapped in the sting himself when he accepted a $7,500 payment in 1986. He subsequently agreed to cooperate with federal agents by posing as a promoter of their legislation.

In his taped conversation with Montoya, Shahabian said Carpenter had received $20,000 in campaign contributions from the “company” in 1986. Later in the discussion, Shahabian asked Montoya how much money he would like to receive as an honorarium.

“What’s in the ballpark?” Montoya asked. “What did Hill get?”

“Well, Hill wants five (thousand),” Shahabian replied. “Well, see, it’s 10 (thousand) between . . . Nolan and Hill. . . . Nolan wants seventy-five hundred. I was gonna do it five and five, but I think Nolan gets seventy-five.”

“I wouldn’t wanna do more than three,” Montoya said and added a moment later, “You don’t wanna appear ridiculous. Y’know it’s nice to, to get help, but you don’t wanna appear ridiculous.”

Montoya and Shahabian agreed that the payment would be an honorarium, which would be personal income for the senator rather than a campaign contribution, which could be used only for political purposes.

$3,000 Breakfast

In recent years, members of the Legislature have reported receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in honorariums, in most cases for speeches they delivered to interest groups.

But in the taped conversation, Montoya suggested he receive a $3,000 honorarium at a breakfast meeting that would involve no speech and would be attended only by the senator, Shahabian and the head of the shrimp “company.”

Shahabian noted, “We’re gonna have an honorarium meeting with Frank Hill, too. . . .”

Ultimately, Montoya received $3,000 from an undercover agent at a breakfast held at a restaurant near the Capitol. Nolan reported accepting $10,000 in campaign contributions, while Hill received a $2,500 honorarium. Nolan, Hill and Carpenter all have declined to discuss the case.

Like Montoya, Robbins displays a cynical attitude toward the legislative process in his taped conversation with Shahabian and talks openly about the influence of money on legislators’ votes.

Shahabian had gone to Robbins before the meeting with Montoya on the pretense of getting his advice on how to move the shrimp company bill through the Legislature.

Robbins and Shahabian discussed the various members of a Senate committee where the bill would be heard and the possibility of press attention making passage of the measure more difficult.

At one point, Shahabian asked, “What do we need to do to get the bill passed?”

“OK. Well, you need to make some arrangements with Joe,” Robbins said.

“And whatta (you) think that’s going to entail?” Shahabian asked.

“You know Joe,” Robbins said.

“Yeah. Not as well as you do,” Shahabian replied.

“Well, if you want me, y’know, I mean what it will take with Joe is a little envelope,” the senator said.

“Five (thousand)? Or . . . less?” Shahabian asked.

Moments later, Robbins said: “I would say three (thousand) would be sufficient. Twenty-five hundred probably’d be OK.”

Robbins emphasized that payments should be in the form of direct payments to Montoya, not campaign contributions.

“You can probably get it without doing substantial contributions,” Robbins said. “I mean, you understand Joe, I’m not talking campaign checks.”

Shahabian said a moment later: “Oh, I see. OK. The little green stuff.”

At the end of their conversation, Shahabian offered Robbins himself the opportunity of payment. But Robbins said he was “delighted” to push the bill as a favor for Shahabian, saying, “You’ve done a lot of favors for me over the years.”

Robbins then added, “I don’t need to be taken care of on every bill that comes through.”

Robbins, who may be called to testify in the Montoya trial, remains a subject of the federal investigation.

Testimony at the trial from several lobbyists has provided glimpses into how these advocates operate in a world where they are frequently asked for money by legislators who have life-and-death say over their legislation.

For example James Mattesich, a lobbyist whose firm represented foreign medical schools, was called to the stand to testify about a 1985 request for money allegedly made by Montoya aide Steven English.

The jury had already heard testimony from former Montoya aide Karen Frick that Montoya told staff members privately he wanted $5,000 to carry legislation benefiting the offshore medical schools. Soon afterward, at a meeting with Mattesich and his partner Gene Livingston, English raised the question of a campaign contribution in exchange for Montoya carrying the legislation, Frick testified.

When Mattesich took the stand, he told the jury he only vaguely recalled the request from English. What he remembered much more clearly, he said, was the reaction from his partner, Livingston, who “barked” at the Senate aide.

Mattesich said he was alarmed--not because English asked for money, but because Livingston might have offended the Senate aide, thus hurting their chances for support from Montoya.

Later that year, Mattesich and Livingston gave the senator $2,350 in campaign contributions. One of their clients, American University of the Caribbean, also gave Montoya a $2,500 honorarium and helped sponsor a trip to the Caribbean for Montoya, his wife, Pilar, English and another Montoya aide.

At the trial, both Mattesich and Livingston testified that there was no connection between the payments to Montoya and three bills the senator carried on behalf of their clients. And they told the jury they did not believe they had been extorted by the senator.

Another lobbyist who testified was former Assemblyman Alister McAlister, who was called to the stand by the prosecution as an expert witness to explain the complex legislative process.

McAlister testified that some bills are known as “juice bills” because they affect well-heeled interest groups that contribute large amounts of money in the hope of influencing legislators’ actions.

Fund-Raising Priorities

And he described how some committees of the Legislature are known as “juice committees” because they hear many juice bills. Seats on such committees are coveted, he said, because the members receive more money in campaign contributions than do other legislators.

But some of the testimony that has revealed the most about the inner workings of the Legislature has come from former aides to Montoya.

Kathleen Somerton, a former consultant to a Senate sports subcommittee chaired by Montoya, said she was regularly “bugged” by the senator to raise money from people seeking his support on legislation.

At one point, she testified, she was given a ledger by a top aide to Montoya and told to log all her fund-raising efforts. And she told the jury she once informed a Florida insurance executive that legislation to help his business would cost him $10,000 in speaking fees for Montoya and other legislators.

Jerry Asher, who was once Montoya’s closest aide, told how he skimmed $500 for himself when Montoya demanded a $2,500 campaign contribution from a lobbyist seeking the senator’s vote.

Asher testified that Montoya was preoccupied with becoming rich, spending his time on his personal real estate transactions and dealing personally with the “big boys” who were major campaign contributors.