Prosecution in Sacramento Goes 10 for 10

Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. . . . All counts. Unanimous. The two defendants sat there glum-faced. The jurors scarcely looked at them.

Sentencing Feb. 14. Happy Valentine’s Day from The People.

The federal jury in the latest Capitol corruption trial returned its verdicts Wednesday after six days of deliberations and a six-week trial. Two more defendants, two more convictions. That makes it 10 for 10 for the prosecution.

Also awaiting trial are three more accused, including two legislators.

The jury didn’t buy the story of powerful insurance lobbyist Clayton R. Jackson that he merely was “dancing” then-Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys) when he promised him $250,000 for a big legislative favor, and that he really never intended to pay. It agreed with prosecutors that Jackson’s lobbying firm had become “a vehicle for bribing” lawmakers.

Neither did they believe former Sen. Paul B. Carpenter (D-Downey) that he paid a public relations expert--a female friend of Robbins--$2,000 a month to keep negative stories out of The Times. They concurred with prosecutors that Carpenter was laundering payoffs from Jackson to Robbins and taking a cut.

Robbins previously had pleaded guilty after turning FBI informant, all part of a sting operation that began seven years ago.

Regardless of whether Jackson and Carpenter had been found guilty by the jury, enough arrogance and sleaze were disclosed to convict them in the court of public opinion--and further sully the Capitol.

Jackson, in particular, seemed especially repugnant in profanity-laced conversations with Robbins, who secretly was wearing an FBI wire. Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame) was “a feisty little bitch,” Sen. John Lewis (R-Orange) was “one of our main robots,” and Jackson’s insurance clients just had “to get used to the idea of forming the policies of the government.”

Robbins testified that Senate leader David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) rewarded him with perks such as increased staff and passage of bills for delivering Democratic campaign contributions--no questions asked. Roberti, never a target of the FBI probe, has denied being aware of Robbins’ illegal shakedowns--or any other senator’s.

*

There have been some real scumbags operating in the Capitol in recent years. And the common practice whenever the whispered subject of corruption and special interests arises has been to nostalgically lament a bygone era when there were Senate “lions” and “citizen legislators” and, yes, politics but also honor.

But I’ve found that those engaged in this lamenting usually either weren’t around then or, as is human nature, remember mostly only the good things.

I recall in the mid-’60s going into the private office of one of those legendary lions, the late Senate President Pro Tem Hugh M. Burns (D-Fresno), and finding four influential lobbyists--liquor, oil, insurance, racing--playing poker with his chief of staff. They stayed there all through my interview, listening and dealing. And I later learned that’s where these lobbyists camped much of every day, a de facto part of the Senate leadership team.

The word in those days was that the price for guaranteeing a bill’s passage through the Assembly was a $10,000 contribution to the political coffer of the late Speaker Jesse M. Unruh (D-Inglewood). I never knew whether that was true, but I didn’t doubt it. Unruh’s defenders would rationalize that whatever money the Speaker did take never actually went into his own pocket, but into Democratic reelection campaigns--thus helping to keep him in power.

I remember at one party after adjournment of an annual session a virtually naked woman, who had successfully advocated passage of a major bill, entertained male legislators one-by-one in a private room.

So these were good old days that really never were.

There is corruption now, but it probably was worse 25 years ago, before stricter disclosure requirements, a more vigilant press and modern electronic surveillance.

*

Still, there clearly is too much corruption today. And the surest way to curb it is for the public to control the campaign money. That means some form of public financing with limits on private contributions and candidate expenditures.

Republicans traditionally have opposed public financing because, unlike Democrats, they have a broad base of wealthy supporters. Democrats, conversely, object to contribution limits because they depend on large chunks of money from a few well-heeled donors.

But until the public begins shoving aside the special interests with its own checkbook, the Capitol shakedowns will continue. The FBI can’t catch every crook.