Time Is Ripe for Political Quid Pro Quo

California legislators often complain of bias against their state in Congress. They say this stems from the sheer size and clout of the 54-member delegation--the largest ever.

It may reflect envy or self-interest. In any case, it’s called ABC: Anyone But California.

So it was that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was singing the California economic blues when she was asked how to persuade colleagues that the no-longer-so-Golden State warrants special assistance from the federal government.

Her response was a surprise: a novel and potentially controversial proposal to link Californians’ hefty campaign contributions to outsiders with support for programs and funds that benefit the state.

“As all these senators come to California to have fund-raisers, I think Californians ought to say, ‘Look, we’re not going to give to you unless you help the state because this is a state that needs help right now,’ ” Feinstein said.

“California has always exported political gratuities to others, and now it needs help back. I think the time has come to get it.”

She is not the only one who thinks this is an idea whose time has come.

Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican familiar with the perpetual pursuit of campaign largess as an ex-U.S. senator, voiced total agreement.

“It’s perfectly legitimate for a Californian who is contemplating making a sizable contribution to somebody else’s election or reelection campaign outside of the state to say: ‘We detect that there is a real anti-California bias. We don’t think that’s fair. . . . We’re not asking for special favors.’ ”

Wilson encouraged contributors to research candidates’ records and “call them to account if they haven’t voted in a way that (is) fair to California.”

*

This proposal is as intriguing as it is problematic.

Recession or not, California remains a mother lode of campaign cash for congressional candidates. A substantial amount of the $42.6 million raised from individuals and $11.7 million from political action committees based in California in 1991-92 went to individuals from other states, a study by The Times shows.

Californians gave House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) $271,850. Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) got $272,694 for his reelection before allegations of sexual harassment emerged.

Not all recipients prove sympathetic to the state’s interests. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a favorite of labor and pro-Israel donors, raised $129,725 in 1989-90 in four Los Angeles congressional districts alone for his costly reelection fight.

But the liberal Democrat, who chairs a key Senate appropriations subcommittee, was an adversary of California legislators seeking to obtain social service money for newly legalized immigrants. California gets more than half these funds. Although Iowa has few immigrants, Harkin had other priorities to help hard-pressed recipients nationally.

Rep. Bob Carr (D-Mich.) garnered $42,250 in California in 1991-92 on his way to reelection by a narrow margin. Carr, who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation, engaged in two battles with Californians this year.

First, he introduced an amendment to frustrate a bid by Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan to divert revenues from Los Angeles International Airport to add Los Angeles police officers. A spokesman said Carr opposes shifting resources from any airport--not just LAX.

Then, Carr tangled with Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose) over transportation projects in the 1994 budget. In the process, Carr sought to pass a bill that would have cost California $11 million in transportation aid and $28 million for expansion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. He failed.

Asked about Feinstein and Wilson’s comments, Howard Edelson, Carr’s chief of staff, responded: “There is no connection between contributions, votes or projects.” He said Carr made his funding decisions on the economic merits.

*

This reflects some of the problems with Feinstein’s idea to link campaign help and support for California. First, no lawmaker, however grateful for the help, will oppose his own constituents’ interests to help this state.

Second, tying campaign contributions to legislative action raises ethical concerns--even if the cause is a state’s well-being rather than that of an individual or business.

Finally, the proposal overlooks why many Californians give to out-of-state candidates. They do so to support Israel, women’s rights or the environment. Or because the recipient chairs a committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction over the donor’s industry--such as defense or wine.

The giver may be a friend of the candidate. Many in the entertainment field contribute because they are asked to do so by powerful executives such as MCA Chairman Lew Wasserman.

That doesn’t mean, however, that California’s problems don’t get mentioned when these legislators come to town. And it doesn’t mean that, on a case-by-case basis, generous Californians can’t remind their beneficiaries that the state now needs their backing on a particular matter.

That, at least, might be an idea whose time has come.