Despite FBI Probe, Moore Appears to Be Unbeatable

Assemblywoman Gwen Moore remains the odds-on favorite to win reelection in her Westside district, even though she has been a target of a political corruption investigation by the FBI for at least the last 18 months.

Both Republicans and fellow Democrats said the Los Angeles lawmaker appears unbeatable for a seventh term in November’s election.

“She is unequivocally strong in her district,” said Rod Wright, a Democratic campaign consultant and activist. “I don’t think anything would change unless she was indicted and convicted of a felony.” Assemblyman Paul A. Woodruff (R-Yucaipa), who oversees elections for the Assembly GOP Caucus, said there is a shortage of “high-caliber” Republican candidates to run against Moore, partly because of the huge registration edge Democrats hold in her 49th Assembly District.

Even Eric Givens, a Republican who has plans to run against Moore for the third time, acknowledges he faces an uphill fight. “It’s one of the longest shots of the season,” he said.

Moore, 46, is one of five state elected officials who are targets of the federal investigation. She carried two bills for a bogus shrimp company set up by the FBI as part of an elaborate sting operation.

The probe became public in August, 1988, when Moore’s Capitol office was raided by federal agents. The dummy company had contributed money to her campaign committee.

Moore has not been charged with any crime and has maintained her innocence. When she testified last month as a defense witness at the political corruption trial of Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), she was told by U.S. Atty. David Levi that she remains under active investigation.

The federal probe, which resulted in Montoya’s indictment, has thrust the low-profile lawmaker into the spotlight more than at any time in her career.

Politicians cite several reasons for her political strength.

They say that with a 4-1 Democratic registration bulge, Moore would have to be charged with a crime before a serious, well-financed challenger would emerge to oppose her.

Another factor in Moore’s favor, they say, is that she is a well-liked lawmaker whose career had not previously been touched by scandal. Moreover, she is generally given high marks for being responsive to her constituents, from the Crenshaw District to Marina del Rey.

As a result of that view on both sides of the political aisle, “people give her the benefit of the doubt” about the federal investigation, said Rick Taylor, a Democratic political consultant.

“I just don’t think that she’s a dishonest person at all,” said Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden, a one-time Democratic state senator. “That’s my feeling. If anything went wrong, it’s not because she knew it.”

After testifying at Montoya’s trial, Moore told reporters: “I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve tried to cooperate with every legitimate investigation. I have nothing to hide.” Montoya faces 10 counts of extortion, racketeering and money-laundering.

In addition to Montoya and Moore, two other lawmakers--Republican Assemblymen Frank Hill of Whittier and Pat Nolan of Glendale--are also targets of the investigation. Former Sen. Paul Carpenter (D-Cypress), now a member of the State Board of Equalization, is also a target of the federal probe.

The investigation shadowed Moore’s reelection efforts in 1988, but she overwhelmingly defeated Givens, a contractor.

During the election, Givens charged that Moore had been too busy representing “phony businesses” to pay serious attention to the district, and he called for her to step down.

But Moore captured 76.7% of the vote in the district that includes Leimert Park, Crenshaw, Baldwin Hills, Culver City, Ladera Heights, Cheviot Hills, Playa del Rey, Marina del Rey and parts of Westchester and Palms.

Moore is not the first California lawmaker to campaign with the cloud of a federal investigation hanging over her head. In 1986, Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles) won reelection, even though his ties to fireworks magnate W. Patrick Moriarty were being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department. In 1987, federal prosecutors decided not to try Roos in connection with a profitable investment arranged by Moriarty.

Likewise, the current investigation does not appear to have had a significant impact on Assemblyman Hill’s political clout. Hill is given a good chance of winning a special state Senate election scheduled for Tuesday. “I think he has the respect of everyone up here,” said Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), the Senate minority leader. “For those of us who felt free to endorse him, we are embracing the idea that he’s innocent until proven guilty.”

Moore’s supporters take a similar stance about the assemblywoman.

Kerman Maddox, a former assistant to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, asserted that if anyone runs against Moore and “uses the sting, it’s an exercise in futility. It will mean nothing, simply because she has a good reputation. . . . People seem to think she got caught up in this because of bad staff work.”

At Montoya’s trial, Moore testified that she agreed to carry the legislation because officials from the dummy company said it would create 35 to 40 jobs, most of them for minorities and “low-entry level people.”

Moore also testified that in 1986 she returned one $5,000 contribution from federal undercover agents because it appeared to be a bribe. But she told reporters she kept $2,000 given her in 1986 because the undercover operatives attended one of her fund-raisers. “They bought tickets, they came to my fund-raiser. They ate my food and so I kept the money,” Moore said.

Tyrone Netters, then a Moore aide, helped steer two Moore bills to benefit the dummy company through the Legislature. The day after the Legislature gave final approval in 1988 to one of the bills, Netters, an unsuccessful candidate for a local utility board, reported receiving a $2,000 contribution to his campaign from the dummy company.

William Julian, a spokesman for the assemblywoman, said Moore does not want to elaborate at this time on her views about the case.

But Moore has voiced optimism about her reelection effort, saying that her constituents have been supportive of her during the investigation. “I am definitely running,” Moore said.

Moore has lived in the area around her district since she was 2 years old. A former member of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, she was first elected to the Assembly in 1978. The contest drew several other black candidates and divided loyalties in the black community. Moore had support from the Democratic political organization of Los Angeles Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Moore is regarded as a low-profile liberal who is loyal to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) but is not part of his inner circle. A year ago, in a move seen as a vote of confidence, Brown named Moore as the Democratic whip to help shepherd legislation for Assembly Democrats.

As chairwoman of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee, Moore wields clout in overseeing telephone and other utility rates. One of her best-known measures was a 1984 law to ensure that home telephone service remained affordable for the poor.

Speaker Brown this week called Moore “one of the best, if not the best” chairs of an Assembly committee. Brown said that until he named her to head the committee in 1983, he “never knew she had the talent. . . . This woman is awesome” in terms of knowing about utilities and negotiating compromises on legislation.

But others question the way her office has performed, especially in the way bills for the dummy shrimp company were handled.

Citing the role of Moore’s aide, Netters, in the legislation, another Democratic colleague, who asked not to be identified, said: “I still feel she was duped by staff. . . . By God, it just looks to me that she was a victim. . . . “

Robert Jacobson, who left Moore’s staff last year, acknowledged that the legislation on behalf of the dummy shrimp company “simply wasn’t just that big a deal” for Moore’s office.

“I don’t think I have poor staff,” Moore said. “We run as tight a ship as anyone. What happened could happen to anyone in the Legislature. It is not a reflection of poor staff.”

Jacobson said that partly because of the FBI investigation, Moore streamlined her office operation. “For one thing,” he said, “we became much better organized in the office, kept better track of documentation . . . to avoid falling in this trap again.”

A Democratic legislative staffer, who asked not to be identified, said that in the past Moore had a reputation for introducing legislation “without paying a whole lot of attention to the bills,” especially these not dealing with the regulation of utilities. Now, he said, “she’s probably more prudent about bills she carries.”

Even before Moore testified at Montoya’s trial, Assemblywoman Sally Tanner (D-Baldwin Park) said “it’s been pretty hard” for Moore to constantly read “negative things” about herself.

Tanner, Moore’s seatmate on the Assembly floor, acknowledged that the investigation has been “agonizing for her. It’s been a very traumatic thing for her.” But Tanner maintained that it has not impacted Moore’s performance. “She hasn’t let it affect her at all,” she said.

Until the federal investigation was disclosed, Moore was mentioned in Sacramento as possible successor to Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) if he decided to run for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors or some other office. Other lawmakers say it is unclear whether the investigation will pose a roadblock if Moore ever seeks higher office.

So far, the investigation has not changed the way Republican strategists view the odds on Moore’s winning reelection.

“The district is very solidly Democratic,” said Republican Assemblyman Woodruff. “I think it would be hard to convince the voters of that area that she hasn’t been voting . . . the party line.”

Woodruff maintained that voters in the 49th District almost always vote Democratic. “If Ronald Reagan or George Bush or George Deukmejian cannot carry Gwen Moore’s district,” Woodruff said, it would be difficult for an unknown GOP candidate to beat Moore.

Without commenting on the FBI investigation of Moore, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) complained that an Assembly member “could be convicted of an ax murder three days before the election and still win 55% of the vote.”

Despite her popularity, some elected officials question whether Moore has done enough for their cities.

“We don’t see a lot that she does particularly for Culver City,” said Culver City Mayor Jozelle Smith, who said she is still upset that in April, 1988, Moore mounted a last-minute mail and telephone campaign on behalf of three council candidates. “I was angry about the interference . . . in our elections,” Smith said.

But Ronni Cooper, president of the Ladera Heights Civic Assn., said Moore is extremely responsive to her group’s needs. She cited Moore’s help about a year ago in blocking construction of a Southern California Rapid Transit District bus yard in her community.

“I don’t think her credibility has been hurt in our community” by the FBI investigation, Cooper said. “Every time we have needed her help . . . she has been there for us.”