PACs Erode O.C.’s Political Credibility : * County Government Is Ripe for Ethical Reform

In local politics, one might at least hope that the sheer proximity of politicians to voters could help keep the process somewhat on an even keel, despite the machinations of powerful lobbyists to tip the boat their way. But the torrent of money from political action committees has worn down the resolve of local government in an insidious way that no determined neighborhood group may ever match.

PAC money has corrupted government in city halls and county board chambers with much the same effectiveness that it has on the state and national scene. And citizens cannot have much faith in government at any level if the political process is obviously rigged to serve special interests and not them.

Some cities, Los Angeles among them, have recognized the problem in their own back yards and instituted reform. But Orange County, reckoning with years of rapid growth, is not as far along as it ought to be. It is a suburban landscape ripe for tough new standards of ethical conduct in county government.

It is not as if Orange County hasn’t tried before. After some politicians went to jail for corruption during the heady boom years, it eventually passed a campaign reform ordinance that was well-intentioned enough in its attempt to keep the influence peddlers at bay. But PACs never were included in that law--a loophole that is conceded by reformers, cheered by lobbyists and generally regarded by supervisors as an invitation to be legally on the take. Meanwhile, in the past 12 years, the influence of PACs on county government has grown. As demonstrated in a recent Times series, anticipated reform has proved to be little more than a test of the ingenuity of powerful interest groups.

So in Orange County, political action committees have become entrenched in what can most charitably be described as a system of legal money laundering. The Board of Supervisors routinely accepts campaign contributions and rewards donors with such goodies as lucrative contracts, rebates and generous raises. Moreover, the hoarding of off-year war chests and the sharing of unused funds have also polluted the political environment.

It’s highly unlikely that the supervisors can come up with meaningful reform themselves. They are understandably reluctant to take feathers out of their own nests. However, the supervisors have a stake in restoring credibility in government, especially as the demographics of the county change, leaving many outside the political process. The board could send a strong signal by letting someone else clean up the system.

For that, Orange County ought to have its own independent ethics commission, charged by the supervisors with either proposing tough legislation to close existing loopholes or proposing entirely new legislation. Such a commission should be made up of respected citizens who have no stake in the process, so as to foster public faith in their work. If the supervisors balk at enacting a tough ordinance, an independent commission would always have the option of proposing its own initiative directly to the voters. This must be a permanent body, designed to stay on beyond the work of getting new legislation enacted. That way, the commission could monitor the new law and fend off the complaints of politicians that it is too tough to live with, as happened in Los Angeles.

Orange County has changed a great deal in recent years, but change has not brought needed reform in campaign financing. We deserve a county government that inspires confidence, encourages participation and fosters openness.