Some Lobbyists Vowing to Halt Contributions

Following the recent conviction of a major lobbyist on political corruption charges, a small but growing number of Capitol lobbyists are saying they will no longer make campaign contributions to candidates or play any role in arranging them.

Some state officials and lawmakers are responding as well, arguing that unless action is taken to cut lobbyists out of political fund raising, either voluntarily or by legislation, public confidence in state government will continue to erode.

They say the only way to remove the taint from lobbying and lawmaking is by ending all talk of money in connection with legislation.

One lobbyist has gone so far as to send a memo to all lawmakers asking them to take his firm’s name from fund-raising solicitation lists. Scott Keene told legislators that it has become “inappropriate, if not perilous” for lobbyists to discuss campaign contributions with legislators or to arrange donations from their clients.

Picking up on Keene’s memo, Chief Deputy Secretary of State Tony Miller has invited all lobbyists to “take the pledge”--to sign a public notice saying they no longer want to be solicited for campaign contributions.

Miller, a Democratic candidate for secretary of state, has also drafted a bill that would make it illegal for lobbyists to contribute or arrange contributions of more than $250 to anyone they have lobbied in the previous six months. The measure could be included in a comprehensive reform package that Senate leaders plan to take up next year.

A week after Miller’s no-solicitation pledge went out to lobbyists, 48 had signed up. However, all but a few represent clients such as Consumers Union and the California Council of Churches--groups which do not make contributions to political campaigns. There are more than 1,000 lobbyists registered in Sacramento.

In response to Keene, state Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear Lake) wrote back to the lobbyist with the promise: “I will not solicit contributions from you or any other registered lobbyist, nor will I accept contributions from registered lobbyists. I hope my colleagues will do likewise.” Leonard sent copies to the entire Legislature.

Leonard said in an interview that it is too early to tell whether other lawmakers will follow suit. “My sense is either this will snowball and become a moral law, if you will, a standard of behavior, or it will just be me and a handful of others,” he said.

Meanwhile, California Common Cause has asked all state elected officials and candidates to sign a “lobbyist non-solicitation pledge” to stop asking lobbyists for money. The group plans to issue a list of those who have taken the pledge on Jan. 10.

Heightened interest in the issue comes after the conviction earlier this month of lobbyist Clayton R. Jackson on federal corruption charges. A jury found Jackson guilty on 10 felony counts, including offering bribes to former state Sen. Alan Robbins of Van Nuys.

Jackson has said he will appeal.

Jackson’s trial served as a primer on the role of money in the Capitol and was a source of embarrassment to the lobbying corps. Day after day, jurors listened to secretly recorded conversations between the lobbyist and Robbins, who became an undercover FBI informant to avoid a lengthy prison sentence for his own misconduct.

The talk frequently turned to money, as much as the $250,000 Jackson promised he could raise from his insurance company clients.

Lobbyist Keene said Jackson’s conviction convinced him he had to take steps to avoid liability.

“Not many (lobbyists) felt Clay crossed the boundaries (of what is illegal),” Keene said in a recent interview. “But the message that comes out of the conviction is that if you engage in the brokerage process, if you’re a player in this process, you at least stand a risk of being indicted. And . . . if you’re indicted, you certainly will be convicted, just by guilt by association with this process.”

Among Keene’s clients are the Japanese government and Toyota Motor Sales USA. However, his office took in only $73,475 in the first nine months of this year--placing it far down the list ranking lobbying firms by income.

Other lobbyists, including some in the top ranks, believe efforts to break the link between lobbyists and campaign contributions are misdirected.

Pledges are not binding, points out Dennis Carpenter, a former lawmaker whose lobbying firm took in $1.7 million during the first nine months of this year--more than any other firm in the Capitol. Among Carpenter’s clients are Arco, Southern Pacific Transportation Co. and several large insurance and tobacco companies.

Carpenter said he has no intention of signing Miller’s pledge.

“I think making a statement like that is a little self-aggrandizing,” Carpenter said. “It doesn’t get to the real problem. The real problem is there’s just too much money spent on election campaigns.”

Of the $17 million collected by incumbent legislators and constitutional officers in the first half of 1993, it is impossible to determine how much was arranged by lobbyists.

One major lobbyist, who asked not to be identified, said that proposals like Miller’s would be easily circumvented. “It stops nothing,” he said. “It would create new business for a lot of lawyers from L.A. These people would be able to say (to corporations, unions and other special interests), ‘I’m not a registered lobbyist; I’d be happy to talk to Legislator X for you about making a contribution.’ ”

What would it take to stop the linking of contributions and legislation? The anonymous lobbyist proposes barring legislators from voting on matters affecting contributors of more than $250.

The few lobbyists from major firms who have filed notices with the secretary of state asking not to be solicited say they do very little direct lobbying of the Legislature and simply want to get their names off fund-raising lists.

“I do a small amount of lobbying before the FPPC (the Fair Political Practices Commission),” said Kathryn Donovan, an attorney with Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro. “I’m an obscure registered lobbyist. I’m not involved in making political contributions. . . . There’s no harm to sign that pledge.”

Miller, from the secretary of state’s office, and others point out that a blanket ban on lobbyists’ making or arranging campaign contributions was included in the original California Political Reform Act, a Watergate-era initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1974.

Five years later, however, the prohibition was struck down as unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. In a spirited dissent, then-Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird predicted, “Once again, money will be the mother’s milk of politics, with the third house (professional lobbyists) owning the dairy.”

Miller contends that his proposal to limit lobbyist contributions would survive a court challenge because it is not as broad as the initiative ban.

A number of critics of the current campaign financing system agree that getting lobbyists out of the fund-raising business will not end corrupt or unethical practices.

“This is all very healthy and good, but it doesn’t solve the problem,” said Robert M. Stern, co-director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.