Several Seymour Bills, Votes Helped Contributors to His Campaigns : Politics: In the state Senate he went to bat for pharmaceutical, optometric and other industries. An aide denies any link between the legislation and money.

A self-described expert at raising campaign contributions, U.S. Sen. John Seymour introduced legislation and cast votes as a state senator that benefited businesses and individuals who donated to his campaigns or paid him speaking fees, a review of public records shows.

Some of Seymour’s measures were introduced for entire industries or professions but had the potential to bring financial gain to those lobbying for the bills--at the expense of competing businesses or the taxpayers.

H. D. Palmer, Seymour’s spokesman in Washington, said there was no “connection whatsoever between the contributions and any legislative activity. He’s got to agree with the philosophy and intent of the bill or he’s not going to introduce it.”

Some examples of these actions:

* In 1989, Seymour introduced legislation for the pharmaceutical industry that would have prevented the state from obtaining volume discounts on the drugs it buys for poor people under the Medi-Cal program. At the time, the Deukmejian Administration was trying to save $80 million by forcing manufacturers to participate in the plan.

The state Department of Health Services, in an analysis, described Seymour’s bill as “an attempt by a special-interest group to block any attempt by the department to reduce the cost of drugs.” The bill died in committee.

Palmer said Seymour introduced the legislation as a way to preserve the “bargaining position” of drug companies that agreed in legislative talks to make some price concessions in exchange for quicker licensing review for new pharmaceutical products.

Seymour received more than $25,000 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies and industry trade groups between 1986 and 1990. He also received a $4,000 expense-paid trip to Florida to speak at a meeting sponsored by the industry.

* In 1989 and 1990, in the face of widespread reports of abuses by vocational and non-traditional private colleges, Seymour was one of a handful of senators who opposed overhauling state regulation of these schools.

He voted against comprehensive legislation in 1989 that established a commission to oversee private schools. The legislation also prevented non-accredited universities and colleges from advertising their curriculum as equivalent to that of accredited institutions.

Seymour opposed the measure because it “would have put unnecessary and stifling restrictions” on the private schools, Palmer said.

The next year, Seymour co-authored legislation that would have repealed the marketing restriction, a move that the California Postsecondary Education Commission said “would encourage deceptive advertising.” The bill passed the Senate but died in the Assembly.

Seymour received at least $10,500 in contributions from schools that were affected by the overhaul of the vocational education regulations.

Seymour also received a $1,000 speaking fee in 1989 from Wilshire Computer College, which was affected by the comprehensive measure and has been in trouble with the state over its student loan default rate.

* Seymour introduced legislation for the California Optometric Assn. in 1989 that mail-order contact lens suppliers said would have driven them out of business. Seymour’s bill would have prohibited these suppliers from selling their products through the mail unless a physician or trained technician had first fitted the lens to the person named on the prescription.

The optometric group contended that the bill was needed to ensure that lenses dispensed by mail are appropriate for the patient. Mail-order contact lens companies and chain outlets argued that it was unnecessary to require a fitting each time a replacement lens was requested.

Eventually, Seymour agreed with this complaint and dropped the bill, saying it was anti-competitive, Palmer said.

Seymour received $8,500 from optometric groups and eye doctors from 1986 though 1989.

* Beginning in 1985, Seymour introduced several bills that required repeat drunk drivers to enter a treatment program before having their licenses reinstated; created an expensive 30-month counseling course for habitual drunk drivers and mandated three-month private programs for first-time drunk-driving offenders.

Seymour carried these bills at the request of the California Assn. of Drinking Driver Treatment Programs. The president, William P. Wise, owns two private programs based in Bellflower that receive referrals from Los Angeles and Orange county courts.

Public records show that Wise, either personally or through his schools, has given Seymour $5,000 in speaking fees and contributions since 1984. The industry association headed by Wise has given Seymour $15,500 in campaign funds since 1987.

Palmer said that Seymour, who also has carried legislation for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, introduced the legislation only because he believes treatment programs work--and not because of the political donations.

* Seymour first caught criticism for helping campaign supporters early in his state Senate career when he cast the deciding vote for passage of a bill intended to strip local governments of any right to ban so-called “safe and sane” fireworks. The 1982 vote came a month after he accepted a $2,000 contribution from the bill’s sponsor, fireworks manufacturer W. Patrick Moriarty. As mayor of Anaheim, Seymour had been a strong supporter of local control.

Seymour received another $4,500 from Moriarty in 1983, of which $1,500 came from a Moriarty employee who later told The Times he was reimbursed by his boss for the contribution.

The next year, when Moriarty was under investigation, Seymour reversed his position and voted with a majority of the Legislature to give local governments the power to outlaw fireworks.

Moriarty was later convicted and jailed on mail fraud charges that included laundering of contributions to a number of California politicians.

Seymour was never charged with any wrongdoing in the Moriarty case.

As a state Senate candidate, Seymour took the contribution only after telling Moriarty that he would vote against the bill if elected, Palmer said. Once he was elected, Seymour took a closer look at the bill, realized it was not as restrictive as he had believed and switched his vote, Palmer said.