Brooks’ Charges Against Harman Draw Criticism : Politics: Challenger claims Hughes workers were strong-armed into supporting incumbent. Rivals call allegations groundless.

Rancho Palos Verdes Councilwoman Susan Brooks has drawn sharp criticism from her rivals in both major political parties after questioning Hughes Aircraft Co.’s fund raising for Rep. Jane Harman (D-Marina del Rey).

Brooks, seeking the 36th Congressional District Republican nomination to challenge Harman in November, charged that Hughes executives pressured their employees into contributing to the congresswoman’s reelection campaign at a reception held Oct. 29 at the company’s Westchester headquarters.

Harman’s district stretches from Venice to San Pedro.

Brooks’ opponents call the charges groundless, and they characterize her as an overzealous campaigner who makes charges without first doing her homework.

At the heart of Brooks’ claim is a letter that the Hughes Active Citizenship Committee sent to Hughes executives on company letterhead.

Harman is “a friend to our industry, and we can certainly help her get reelected,” the letter stated, suggesting contribution amounts linked to rank in the company.

Hughes Chairman C. Michael Armstrong also sent a letter but did not solicit financial support.

“The order was basically, ‘Give, or walk the planks,’ ” Brooks said at a news conference last week. “The implications are there.”

But the letter also stated that contributions are voluntary. Of 240 letters sent, only about half the recipients attended the fund-raiser, said Hughes spokesman Ray Silvius.

“There was no strong-arming,” he said. “We took all precautions and sought the advice of outside legal counsel.”

Officials of the Federal Election Commission, which oversees congressional races, said they could not comment on Brooks’ specific charges. But they cited an election rule that allows companies to distribute partisan letters to top-level employees and shareholders.

At her news conference, Brooks also questioned whether Hughes was reimbursed by Harman’s campaign for the cost of the fund-raiser. Such reimbursement is required by federal law.

In fact, Harman’s campaign paid the company $857.46, including $731 for staff labor, $16 for company stationery, $10 for badges, $50 for rental of company facilities and $50 for other administrative costs, according to finance reports and a canceled check to Hughes dated Feb. 9. The campaign also paid $950 to the Canteen Corp., which catered the reception. About $20,000 to $25,000 was raised at the event.

“The charges are outright false,” said Steve Gray-Barkan, a spokesman for Harman’s campaign. “Once again, there is egg on (Brooks’) face.”

Last month, Brooks distributed a letter accusing her Republican opponent, former Palos Verdes Estates Councilman Ron Florance, of having “a tainted business background.” Brooks pointed to more than 40 lawsuits that have named Florance or one of his companies in the past nine years.

But Florance accused Brooks of distorting the truth and threatened legal action. He said that only one of the lawsuits went to trial, and that he prevailed. Many of the lawsuits, he said, were frivolous claims.

The charges against Harman are “just another example of Susan shooting from the hip, throwing out unsubstantiated, reckless charges without first checking all of her facts,” said John Carlson, a consultant on the Florance campaign.

Still, Brooks’ campaign staff plans to file a complaint by early next week with the Federal Election Commission about the Harman fund-raiser.