A Checkered Past : Various Reform Movements Have Temporarily Controlled Flagrant Excesses of Lobbyists, but New Abuses Soon Crept In

The history of California politics is a history of lobbying by special interests.

A century ago, political operatives for Southern Pacific railroad ruled the Capitol, handpicking governors and legislators. Abe Ruef, the Southern Pacific’s political boss, swaggered across the floors of the Assembly and Senate, making sure the railroad’s legislation got all the votes needed. The domination ended with Ruef’s conviction on bribery charges.

In 1911, progressive Republican Hiram Johnson was swept in as governor on the promise of reform.

But like any highly adaptable species, special interest lobbyists not only survived but continued to flourish.

By the 1920s, powerbrokers such as lobbyist Artie Samish--who over the years represented liquor companies and breweries, racetracks and oil companies--were firmly entrenched.

Samish’s reign ended abruptly in 1953 when he was convicted of income tax evasion. Others moved in to fill the vacuum.

By 1960, a young, ambitious Democrat, Jesse M. Unruh, writing in Reader’s Digest as Assemblyman X, complained that lobbyists still ran the Legislature. He said changing that would require a new breed of independent legislators. But lobbyists and their clients remained the primary source of the money needed to win elections.

A year later, with the help of special interest money he despised, Unruh became Assembly Speaker.

Unruh often admonished new legislators, “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, (make love to) their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here.”

In those days, lobbyists were required to register and report details of their expenses--but the documents were filed with a legislative committee and the names of legislators were struck from the record.

That era ended with the Watergate scandal that drove President Richard M. Nixon from office in 1974 and set off a nationwide wave of reform.

Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., then California’s secretary of state, successfully ran for governor that year under the banner of reform. Central to his campaign was an initiative that he and others placed on the statewide ballot: the Political Reform Act.

Proposition 9 was aimed at reducing the influence of lobbyists. No longer would a lobbyist be able to pick up the cost of a legislator’s meals and bar bills beyond a nominal $10 per month. And the initiative required much more detailed financial disclosure for lobbyists and candidates.

The act won overwhelming voter approval.

Yet the initiative did not put an end to corruption.

In 1985, Orange County fireworks king W. Patrick Moriarty admitted funneling campaign contributions to legislators and supplying some with prostitutes while he sought passage of a bill to stop local communities from banning so-called safe and sane fireworks.

A year later, the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento and the FBI launched an elaborate sting operation to root out legislative corruption. The investigation has led to the indictment or conviction of 14 people, including five legislators and five legislative aides.

In response to the initial indictments, the Legislature in 1990 barred legislators from taking gifts of more than $250 from any single source and prohibiting them from accepting speaking fees. Legislators and lobbyists were required to attend seminars on ethics and the law.

In February, a federal grand jury indicted Clayton R. Jackson, one of the Capitol’s most successful lobbyists, on charges of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy.

Among the allegations against him was that in 1991 he offered to give then-Sen. Alan Robbins $250,000 for help in killing a workers’ compensation bill. Jackson pleaded innocent to the charges.

The indictment sent a message through the lobbying corps--particularly among those lobbyists who rely heavily on contributions to ensure access to legislators.

Will new reforms or the threat of indictment have any long-term effect on Capitol lobbying? History suggests the answer: Efforts to curtail the most egregious lobbying practices have an initial impact. But with millions of dollars riding on many bills, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in affecting the outcome, that’s unlikely to last.