Legislature Overwhelmingly Approves Major Ethics Bill : Reform: But several key features will take effect only if voters pass Proposition 112. That measure would grant pay increases to lawmakers.

A wide-ranging ethics measure designed to curb corruption in the state Capitol and limit the influence of wealthy special-interest groups was passed overwhelmingly Thursday by the Legislature.

The landmark legislation, approved by votes of 34 to 0 in the Senate and 71 to 1 in the Assembly, would dramatically reduce the outside income legislators can receive through speaking fees, gifts and free trips from groups seeking legislative action.

The bill by Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) also would curtail the ability of lawmakers to enhance their personal financial fortunes through their legislative actions. It would create the first conflict-of-interest penalties for legislators and prohibit lawmakers from going directly into lobbying upon leaving office.

Major elements of the plan, however, will take effect only if voters approve a June 5 ballot measure that would set the stage for a substantial legislative pay raise.

“I believe it is the most comprehensive code of conduct across the country,” said Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the Assembly Ethics Committee. “It makes it clear this Legislature can act to assure the public that we are ethical and persons they can trust.”

The bill, with bipartisan backing, now goes to Gov. George Deukmejian, who has indicated privately to legislative leaders that he will sign it.

Legislators have long been criticized for accepting thousands of dollars annually in speaking fees and gifts from groups seeking legislative action. A Los Angeles Times Poll in January showed most voters think legislators are corrupt, and in February then-Sen. Joseph B. Montoya was convicted on extortion and racketeering charges. Earlier this month, former Sen. Paul Carpenter, now a member of the State Board of Equalization, was indicted on corruption charges.

Among those who joined in voting for the ethics bill Thursday were four legislators who remain under investigation by the FBI: Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana), Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier), Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale) and Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles).

Specifically, the legislation would ban outside speaking fees for elected state officials, limit gifts to $250 a year from any individual or group, and restrict lobbying for 12 months by legislators and top state officials who leave office.

All three of these features would become law only if voters approve Proposition 112, which would create an independent commission with the power to set legislators pay. Some legislators, who now receive $40,816 a year plus a tax-free expense allowance of $88 a day, have suggested tying their pay to the salaries of Superior Court judges, who make $84,765 a year.

At the same time, several provisions of the bill would take effect regardless of the outcome of Proposition 112. These include the conflict-of-interest penalties for legislators, who could be fined up to $2,000 for voting on matters that financially benefit themselves.

In addition, the bill would prohibit members of the Board of Equalization, the state’s tax appeal board, from voting on issues affecting campaign donors who contributed $250 or more in the previous 12 months.

Passage of the measure was applauded by Common Cause, the citizens’ lobbying group that has long called for ethical reforms. “California has gone from the back to becoming the leader in cleaning up political corruption,” said James R. Wheaton, executive director of the group.

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown called the measure a “giant step” forward but acknowledged that more could have been done to reduce corrupt influences on the Legislature.

“Legislation never contains all of the things because there is always the art of compromise,” said the San Francisco Democrat, who urged his colleagues to vote for the bill. “This is the best that we can do at this moment.”

Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson also called on legislators to support the measure but noted that it left a number of loopholes. Lawmakers will be able to accept free trips abroad from nonprofit corporations and foreign governments, he noted. They also will be able to accept free trips of up to three days anywhere in the United States to make speeches.

The La Habra Republican also lamented the fact that the measure does not ban speaking fees for local elected officials, who under existing law may receive up to $1,000 for each appearance.

“I’m not sure that (Los Angeles Mayor) Tom Bradley is worth $1,000 to hear him speak but the governor of the state . . . is not,” Johnson said.

In the Assembly, some Democrats attempted to hold up the measure at the last minute in a bid to enact an outright ban on speaking fees that would not be linked to the passage of Proposition 112. They argued that legislators should not require a salary hike in order to become more honest.

But legislative leaders in both houses rejected the effort, arguing that reopening the debate on specific provisions of the bill could undermine the compromise that had been negotiated among them.

The lone vote against the legislation was cast by Assemblyman Robert J. Campbell (D-Richmond). He has argued that the bill did not go far enough in limiting outside income to legislators, who still will be allowed to receive payment for services they provide as lawyers, teachers or members of other professions.

In the Senate, the measure won support from both parties. “I believe that we all realize in our hearts there is nothing more important than the restoration of public confidence in this process,” said Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Benicia). “Our own reelections are not as important.”

TOUGHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR STATE OFFICIALS

Here are the main features of the Legislature’s new ethics measure, approved Thursday. Some of the provisions would take effect only with the passage on June 5 of Proposition 112, which would create an independent commission with the power to give legislators a substantial pay raise. Issue: Speaking fees. Current law: State and local elected officials are allowed to receive up to $1,000 a year from each single source for speeches relating to the governmental process. Proposed action: Would ban all outside speaking fees and cash payments for legislators, the governor, other elected state officials and top state employees. Exceptions: No restriction on outside earned income. The ban on speaking fees would not apply to local elected officials. Effective date: Jan. 1, 1991, but only if Proposition 112 is passed by voters in the June 5 primary election. Issue: Gifts. Current law: Legislators are prohibited from accepting gifts of more than $10 a month from a registered lobbyist. There is no other limit on gifts. Proposed action: Would put a limit of $250 on gifts from most sources to legislators, the governor, other elected state officials and top state employees. Exceptions: Permits family gifts and exchanging gifts with friends. Also would allow travel expenses for U.S. speeches. Free foreign trips allowed that serve a governmental purpose when sponsored by nonprofit groups or foreign governments. Effective date: Jan. 1, 1991, but only if voters pass Proposition 112. Issue: Lobbying by former officials. Current law: Former executive branch officials are prohibited from representing clients in proceedings in which they were once personally involved as state employees. Proposed action: Would impose a 12-month ban on lobbying by a broad group of state officials--including legislators, who could not lobby the Legislature--when they leave office. Exceptions: Would not apply to 20 members of the state Senate until after their current terms expire in 1992. Effective date: Jan 1, 1991, but only if voters pass Proposition 112. Issue: Conflict-of-interest penalties. Current law: Elected officials cannot vote on matters affecting their own financial interests. Local officials face serious penalties for violations, but there is no penalty for violations by state legislators. Proposed action: Would impose an administrative fine of up to $2,000 per violation on legislators. Exceptions: Would not subject legislators to the prospect of criminal prosecution or the substantial civil fines that are now faced by local officials. Effective date: Jan. 1, 1991, if signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian. Issue: Campaign contributions. Current law: Political donations to state and local candidates are limited to $1,000 from individuals, $2,500 from political committees and $5,000 from broad-based political committees. Proposed action: Would subject members of the State Board of Equalization to conflict-of-interest penalties for voting on matters affecting the interests of donors who gave them $250 or more. Exceptions: Would not subject legislators or other elected officials to the same kind of penalties for voting to benefit their campaign contributors. Effective date: Jan. 1, 1991, if signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian. Issue: Ethics education. Current law: No current requirement. Proposed action: Legislators, staff members and lobbyists would be required to take a course on standards of ethical conduct at least once every two years. Exceptions: None Effective date: Jan. 1, 1991, if signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian.