Despite Reform, ‘Juice’ Still Oils the System

On the eve of an election--and as we commemorate that great day for the forces of freedom at Normandy--it is timely to note how democracy too often works in California’s Capitol.

One example:

A veteran lobbyist recently noticed a minor tax break bill--obviously written to benefit some special interest--and wondered whether it might also help one of his business clients. So he called the legislative author and asked.

Don’t know, the lawmaker replied; will check into it.

The next day, the lobbyist was contacted by his confused client. The legislator’s fund-raiser had just called, the client reported, and asked for a campaign contribution. The fund-raiser had not mentioned the pending tax bill. That could have been illegal. But his implied message was obvious: Pay up if you want in on the action.

It’s an all-too-common tale. This was a “juice bill” aimed at squeezing campaign donations from special interests looking to benefit from legislation. Other times, they’ll pay protection money to be exempt from a bill’s grasp.

“Some of my clients think this government is for rent,” laments the lobbyist, insisting on anonymity.

Sometimes it is.

Terry E. Frost, currently on trial in federal court for allegedly conspiring to commit extortion, told a wired FBI informant in 1988 how he operated as a Senate staffer raising money for Democrats:

“I (don’t) twist arms. . . . I will not force people to give contributions. I explain political realities. And then if they say no, that’s fine. . . . When they come to ask a favor, they can understand why I say no. Because I have to work with those people who are appreciative (of the Democratic) leadership.”

At another point, Frost commented: “I won’t sell the farm and compromise my principles totally. Partially, maybe.”

*

The consensus of the Capitol community is that the place is less corrupt now than it was six years ago when the FBI raided some offices and disclosed that it had been conducting a sting operation. Four Los Angeles County legislators have been convicted and a fifth--Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier)--now is on trial with Frost. Several legislative aides, lobbyists and other officials also have been convicted.

“There certainly was a problem with some bad apples, but those bad apples have been turned into applesauce,” says new Senate leader Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward).

One important reform was the banning of honorariums. The money often was given to a legislator for a speech, but too frequently simply was a payoff.

Hill got into trouble--alleged extortion and money laundering--because he took a $2,500 honorarium from an FBI agent posing as a Southern businessman. An honorarium, Hill told the jury, “was a way of augmenting our income.” Hill pocketed his check after sitting in a hotel room for an hour and listening to the “businessman” drone on about duck hunting and air shows.

That kind of juice has dried up for legislators. It will be replaced next December by a 37% salary increase. An independent citizens commission, created by voters when honorariums were banned, recently voted to hike the lawmakers’ annual pay from $52,500 to $72,000.

That makes for cleaner compensation. But it won’t end corruption, because politicians still must grub for campaign contributions.

*

Legislators are becoming increasingly frantic about campaign money. One reason is that campaign costs keep climbing; in 1992, legislative candidates raised $72 million.

Another reason is that, because of term limits, seats are becoming more competitive. That’s what voters wanted. But competitive seats cost more to run for. An unintended consequence of term limits is that many lawmakers aren’t waiting around; they’re vacating their seats--making them competitive--and running for a higher office. Then they must raise big bucks to campaign for that office.

The system is rotten for two basic reasons:

* Legislators spend too much time raising money--time they should be devoting to public policy. (And it’s not just legislators. Gov. Pete Wilson has raised an average of $45,000 per day since Jan. 1.)

* The money is solicited primarily from special interests. And it’s special interests, therefore, that too often influence how politicians vote.

There is no perfect solution. But the best in my view is some form of partial public financing combined with limits on private contributions and candidate spending. That’s the system we’ve had for the last five presidential campaigns.

People who object to spending tax money on politicians’ campaigns should think of it as buying a better democracy.