Lawmakers See Little Chance for Campaign Reform : Government: Even proponents do not hold out much hope for changing financing laws this year. Critics of state Legislature say politicians are afraid of upsetting the status quo.

Like every other Sacramento lawmaker, Ross Johnson has squeezed his share of “juice,” the hefty campaign contributions that flow around election time.

Johnson, however, says he’s never enjoyed the exercise, nor the bitter taste it leaves with the public. To that end, the Republican assemblyman from Fullerton has been trying for nearly a dozen years to slap a legal lid on the campaign cash. He has authored bills, pushed two statewide ballot measures, buttonholed colleagues--all to no avail.

But Johnson is back at it again this year, joining half a dozen other lawmakers eager to see elections become more fiscally prudent affairs unfettered by the Midas-sized donations of such special interests as doctors, teachers, labor unions and lawyers.

No one is holding his breath.

Even as federal lawmakers debate tough reforms proposed by the Clinton Administration, there appears to be little chance that a similar effort will make much headway this year in Sacramento. Despite the indictment and conviction of several state lawmakers for political corruption and polls showing public distrust of state government, California’s deeply divided Legislature still cannot agree how to yank itself from the morass.

Critics contend that the lawmakers are simply reluctant to trash a system that helped get most of them elected.

“They’re terrified of change,” said Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause, a Sacramento watchdog group. “Legislators are more concerned about getting reelected rather than how the public perceives the institution.”

But reformers still have hope.

Some suggest that the Assembly’s large class of 27 freshmen, who elbowed into office largely on a promise to overturn the Sacramento status quo, could give reforms a boost. There are nearly a dozen bills for them to choose from, some calling for a simple limit on contributions, others proposing an austere revamping of the campaign finance system.

If it does not happen in the Legislature, change could come courtesy of the judicial branch. The state Supreme Court will take a fresh look later this year at instituting Proposition 68, the broad-based campaign reform law approved in 1988 only to be ruled void because a competing measure got more votes.

Others say new statewide ballot measures are in the offing. Prompted by the fund-raising tactics of Jerry Brown, the former California governor who solicited contributions of $100 or less during his unsuccessful presidential bid last year, a coalition may try to put a measure capping contributions at $100 on the 1994 ballot.

But veterans of the political trench wars do not see reform coming soon. “I don’t think there’s any chance at all,” Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said in an interview last week. The powerful Democratic leader from San Francisco said lawmakers lack the “political will” to see reforms through and tossed aside the idea of a ballot measure as “dumb” and “ludicrous.”

Reformers say Brown and other leaders deserve much of the blame for the legislative inertia. Brown, for instance, staunchly opposed Proposition 68 when it was on the ballot, and he joined both parties recently to file legal arguments against the initiative with the Supreme Court.

“There are a lot of crocodile tears shed by legislators over campaign finance reform problems, but when it comes to voting for it, lo and behold, they don’t,” said Tracy Westen, executive director of the California Commission on Campaign Finance, which studies governmental reform issues.

As is the case with most issues in Sacramento, the debate over juice has been colored by a partisan patina. After a dozen years of talk, neither side can agree on a solution.

Democrats chafe at the idea of simply adopting a $1,000 limit on campaign contributions, a tact favored by Republicans such as Orange County’s Johnson. Although the ruling Democrats are more apt to enjoy the fruits of five-figure contributions from sugar-daddy special interest groups, GOP candidates typically can tap a larger pool of $1,000 contributors.

Many Republicans, meanwhile, loathe the idea of spending limits and public financing of campaigns, which Democrats favor. Aside from a distaste for taxpayer dollars being used for political campaigns, Republicans say wealthy candidates can simply ignore spending lids, which courts have ruled must be voluntary.

Amid the partisan tiff, some suggest that something far more troubling is taking place.

Assemblywoman Debra Bowen, a freshman Democrat from Marina del Rey whose own reform bill has been scuttled for the year, contends that the rancor is not partisan at all. Instead, she said, lawmakers from both parties have grown quite content to let their nit-picking kill off any chance for campaign reforms that most do not want anyway.

“The issue isn’t one of finding the perfect way to do it,” Bowen said. “It’s a matter of this: Are we better off having some limits rather than no limits? The answer, I think, is obvious.”

Leaders of the two parties, however, say it is more complex. Brown, for one, insists that he does not fear reform. “We will win by any rules,” he said. “It’s like raising the basket when Wilt Chamberlain came along.” No matter what, Brown professes confidence that he will still perform political slam-dunks.

The Legislature has shunted aside reforms since the early 1980s, when Angst first began to mount over the rapid rise in campaign costs. In 1976, about $16 million was contributed to California’s legislative candidates. The figure rose to about $72 million last year, a 350% increase.

Normal inflationary pressures, population growth and the rising cost of campaigning bear some of the blame. Also, well-established legislators, eager to earn chits or cement a leadership role, increasingly dole out campaign dollars to neophyte candidates or troubled colleagues around election time, a practice known in political parlance as “transfers.”

Whatever the cause, state government became locked into the mentality of a nuclear arms race, with politicians raising campaign cash to avert preemptive strikes by possible opponents.

The ultimate beneficiary, Bowen said, has been special interests. “I think all this money does affect the way people make decisions,” she said. “Sometimes it’s on an unconscious level. But sometimes it’s not. It really is pernicious.”

Yet even some reform-minded lawmakers question the clout of big-money special interests. “There’s too much influence, but it’s often overstated,” said state Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), who has authored several campaign reform bills.

Perceptions, though, are important. Johnson said voters “have a right to feel their elected representatives are representing them, not whoever can shove the most money over the transom.”

Along with a few colleagues, Johnson began introducing legislation to rein in campaign contributions in the early 1980s. Rebuffed, he turned in 1984 to the ballot box. But his campaign reform measure, Proposition 40, suffered a crushing defeat. The same year, a Democrat reform bill reached the desk of then-Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, but was vetoed. It was the last time one got that far.

Johnson and other reformers were back at it by 1988, and for the first time they met with success. Common Cause supported Proposition 68, which combined a contribution cap with spending limits, public financing of campaigns and other changes. Johnson countered with Proposition 73, a less Draconian measure that imposed a limit on donations and a ban on transfers.

On Election Day, both initiatives got majority approval, but Proposition 73 prevailed with more votes.

Although critics had branded Proposition 73 as a canard designed to defeat the competing measure, Johnson’s plan proved effective. After years of steady increases, campaign contributions to legislative candidates plummeted 35% between 1988 and 1990.

But it was a short-lived success. In 1990, Proposition 73 was deemed unconstitutional and most of its provisions thrown out in federal court. Once again, the sky was the limit for campaign contributions.

Even if reforms were approved tomorrow, political observers say nimble campaign operatives would likely find loopholes. Political organizations can evade limits by “bundling” small donations to create a healthy contribution for their candidates. Independent expenditure committees can sidestep spending caps by financing an advertising campaign for a candidate or cause.

Another potential pitfall involves the question of where to set the ceiling for contributions. Too high and the cap could be ineffective. Too low and it could hurt challengers, who usually lack the breadth of contacts an incumbent enjoys and often rely on the largess of family and close friends to finance an infant campaign.

Without some kind of campaign finance reform, Sacramento lawmakers will continue to feel the lash of public revolt, advocates say. Term limits might have been just the beginning.

“If the Legislature continues on the present course, it will be self-destructive,” said Westen of the California Commission on Campaign Finance. “The long-term vitality of the institution is being undermined through lost public respect.”

Campaign Loot

Money raised for California legislative races rose steadily between 1976 and 1988. Proposition 73 set a $1,000 lid on contributions from individuals.

In millions of dollars ‘90: Prop. 73 passed ‘92: Prop. (73 ruled unconstitutional) $71.9 Sources: California Fair Political Practices Commission; California Common Cause