NEWS ANALYSIS : Corruption Trial Spotlight Casts Long Political Shadows

Even before the jury reaches a verdict in the case of former state Sen. Paul B. Carpenter and powerhouse lobbyist Clayton R. Jackson, their six-week corruption trial has cast an unflattering spotlight on several other public figures.

The testimony of more than two dozen witnesses and transcripts of undercover tapes have raised questions about the manipulation of campaign contributions, lobbying by special interests and officeholders’ ethics.

No other public figures have been accused of any crimes, but the court revelations could create obstacles for several politicians seeking statewide office in 1994.

Among those sullied in testimony is Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys), who is about to mount a campaign to run for state treasurer. The star prosecution witness, former Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys) testified that the Senate leader rewarded him with staff and help on bills in exchange for contributions to initiative campaigns and targeted election contests.

Another is Assemblyman Rusty Areias (D-San Jose), a potential candidate for state controller. An FBI agent testified that the legislator was evasive when questioned by authorities about a curious fund-raising document in a file on lottery legislation.

The trial, which goes to the jury Monday, may have already claimed one high-ranking victim.

California Lottery Director Sharon Sharp tendered her resignation to Gov. Pete Wilson just weeks after tapes were played at the trial in which Jackson, former lobbyist for a company with lucrative lottery contracts, described Sharp in a secretly recorded conversation as “our gal.”

Sharp dismissed Jackson’s boast, but it may have hastened her departure. Sharp had been facing criticism for allowing major contracts to be awarded without competitive bids.

On the tapes, Jackson also bragged about his close relationship with other officials in the Wilson Administration and described the governor as “somewhat inept.” Wilson spokesmen have denied that Jackson, a top insurance industry lobbyist, had any more clout with the governor’s office than other influence seekers in the Capitol.

But some of the harshest words from the trial have been directed at legislators.

Testimony described how some Senate actions hinged on campaign contributions, especially from Jackson’s lobbying clients, and how legislators laughed about Robbins’ behavior--but failed to report their suspicions to the authorities--all on Senate Leader Roberti’s watch.

Sen. Daniel Boatwright (D-Concord) testified that senators joked about Robbins, a longtime Valley legislator, leaving the Senate floor to make telephone calls during hotly debated legislation. He said he would “wonder how much he’s getting or who he’s talking to. We joked about it.”

Asked by Assistant U.S. Atty. John Vincent why he never contacted authorities, Boatwright, a onetime prosecutor, shot back: “That’s not a crime.”

Steve Glazer, Roberti’s spokesman, would not comment on Boatwright’s assertions, but emphasized that Roberti was never aware of any illegal activity by Robbins.

He said Roberti, who has never been accused of wrongdoing, is disappointed when members of the Senate violate the law. But Glazer added that Roberti “is not responsible for the conduct of each senator. They are independently elected and are ultimately accountable to their voters.”

Glazer denies Robbins’ depiction of senators being influenced by campaign contributions and downplays any connection between the trial and Roberti’s political future.

Glazer said Roberti is one of the authors of a far-reaching ethics reform approved by voters in 1990. He described the effort as “something that can be pointed to with pride in campaigns for other offices.”

Areias is another veteran legislator whose name has come up repeatedly at the trial.

The assemblyman wrote a 1985 proposal that would have forced lottery contractors to print tickets at a plant in California. Such a facility was being constructed in Areias’ district. He maintained that he introduced the legislation, which did not become law, because he wanted the jobs for his constituents.

A grand jury subpoenaed Areias’s records on the bill as part of the investigation of Jackson, who is charged with illegally paying off Robbins in an effort to block the Areias bill.

FBI Agent James Wedick, who for a decade has overseen an investigation of state government corruption, testified that inside the Areias working file on the bill was what appeared to be a list of legislators and campaign contributions. Wedick testified that having such information in a bill file was unusual and that he found Areias evasive when questioned about the list.

Wedick described the list--still not made public--as a “smoking gun” that he said appeared to demonstrate “that money played a part with respect to this file.”

In an interview, Areias scoffed at Wedick’s characterization of him, saying he never talked to the agent and was only questioned by a federal grand jury.

“Campaign donations are public donations and a part of what I want to look at when I’m sizing up how much time and energy the opposition is putting into the fight,” Areias said.

Asked whether the trial will impact his campaign, the legislator said: “Sure, I’ve been splashed by some of the mud from the trial, but my only role was to protect 144 jobs in my district.”

Others touched by the trial are out of elective office but continue to have the ear of decision makers in the Capitol.

For instance, Robbins testified that Jackson enjoyed a close relationship with another legislator: former Sen. William Campbell, a lobbyist who heads the California Manufacturers Assn.

On the secretly recorded tapes Jackson bragged: “What’s really good is I’m becoming Campbell’s chief guru.” In a disparaging crack, Robbins said Campbell’s “mathematics skill was limited to counting campaign contributions.”

Campbell could not be reached for comment Friday, but a spokesman for his association said the former legislator would be happy to discuss the statements after the jury returns its verdict.