ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Trial Illustrates Need for Campaign Reform : Politics: Contribution limits may help ensure a Legislature more motivated by public need than generous special interests.

The recent federal criminal trial of former Orange County state Sen. Paul Carpenter and super-lobbyist Clay Jackson has given Californians an opportunity to learn of the inner workings of state government. Unfortunately, the testimony at trial seemed to be describing a swap meet rather than the legislative process.

The trial was focused on how campaign contributions were generated and disbursed and what contributors expected to and did receive in return. The convictions earlier this month of both Carpenter and Jackson on all criminal counts, therefore, were verdicts on the system as much as on the individual defendants. The rash of criminal charges and convictions in state government over the past couple of years should finally send a message to all concerned: The political finance system is in trouble and needs reform.

The trial attracted public attention because it involved some leading players in state government: lobbyist Jackson, who had effectively represented insurance, alcohol and other business interests in Sacramento; and two former powerful state senators, Carpenter and Alan Robbins. Robbins was chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee until he pleaded guilty to criminal influence-peddling charges in 1992. He appeared as the prosecution’s key witness, guiding the jury through the maze, mess and money of what has become our state legislative process.

Jackson was rightly considered a super-lobbyist because of his effectiveness on behalf of various special-interest clients. He was able to direct thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from his clients to legislators. Miraculously, Jackson was then able to achieve favorable results for his clients during the legislative session.

If, as the defense attorneys argued, the campaign contributions were merely part of the campaign process, there was nothing illegal. However, if inherent in some contributions was an agreement, explicit or implicit, that the contributions bought favors from politicians, then criminality could be found. The resulting convictions on all 21 counts for Jackson and Carpenter were a resounding affirmation by 12 jurors that campaign donations bought legislators’ votes.

Despite the disagreement between the prosecution and defense as to the criminality of the conduct, all parties agreed as to the nature and practice of the solicitation of campaign contributions. Jackson admitted in his testimony that the current campaign fund-raising system is out of control.

He detailed how legislators have become more and more creative and aggressive in fund-raising efforts. According to Jackson, there has been a dramatic negative change over the last 20 years in fund raising. This is telling from the man who was a chief manipulator of such a system.

A revealing aspect of the trial was the number of Jackson’s former clients, CEOs of major California insurance companies, who testified against him. One after another, they testified how Jackson had told them of the necessity of making campaign contributions.

One executive quoted Jackson as saying that “if you were to survive the game,” you needed to make large campaign contributions. The “game,” of course, is the process whereby special interests seek to influence the governmental process. Jackson’s clients contributed more than $3 million in 1987-88 to legislative candidates.

Between the undisputed testimony and the verdict of the jury, it is now obvious why it is so difficult for the Legislature to act on matters of vital public importance: Large campaign contributions do directly influence legislation.

Year after year, the public watches while the Legislature goes through its machinations with lots of rhetoric and little results. California Common Cause conducted an analysis of political-action-committee contributors in the 1992 legislative races. Together, the top 10 PAC contributors gave more than 10% of all the money contributed to legislative candidates, most of whom were incumbents. Why? As a representative of the California Medical Assn. once said: “Losers don’t legislate.”

The jury blamed “the political system” for the conduct of Jackson and Carpenter and not their individual moral failings. “We all felt the system caused the crime,” said one juror. The only people who claimed that the behavior described by the various witnesses was an aberration were legislators--the individuals most embarrassed by the revelations made under oath.

Thus the jury verified what many have come to believe as common sense: Large donations to candidates are made not just to curry favor but to buy votes.

The jury system has demonstrated that special interests buy legislators’ votes through large campaign contributions. This unfortunate situation is the result of a campaign finance system that encourages and rewards legislative misconduct, not necessarily the lack of integrity of legislators.

The problems now facing California cannot be solved by a Legislature held captive by special interests. The system must be reformed by, among other things, enacting campaign contribution limits. Not surprisingly, there is little evidence that a Legislature so reliant on the mother’s milk of politics will enact reforms without public pressure.

Until the public either passes a campaign finance reform initiative or holds its legislators accountable, the corrupt system revealed in the Jackson-Carpenter trial will continue, and legislators will continue to be unduly influenced by money rather than public need.