The Art of the Subtle Shakedown

To paraphrase Ross Perot, that giant sucking sound you hear is legislators vacuuming up money from the special interests.

It’s an annual ritual, like the late summer harvest. The lawmakers glean, shake down, grab every dollar they can from the lobbyists.

It’s a sort of cover charge for working the state Capitol.

This is an old game. The Legislature is about to adjourn for the year. More than 400 bills are pending on the Senate and Assembly floors, with hundreds more stymied in committees. It’s gut-wrenching time for the 1,050 registered lobbyists, representing virtually every special interest--from Indian gambling to Orange County to ostrich farms.

If you’re a legislator, what better time to hit up lobbyists for campaign bucks.

It’s also an old story that never changes. Legislators must be masochists. They lead with their chins. Reporters--cheered on by the lobbyists--swing away. The lawmakers wind up looking like piggish brutes. Year after year.

They could change the plot. They could reform. But they never do.

So here we are again, with the vacuum operating at high speed.

“Term limits haven’t made a bit of difference,” says Ruth Holton, executive director of California Common Cause. “The new legislators operate the same as the old. The pace hasn’t slowed.”

*

One veteran lobbyist, both outraged and amused, showed me a thick accordion folder full of fund-raising invitations. This Capitol veteran, who insisted on anonymity, estimated he gets solicited for about two-thirds of the money-raisers.

So far, he has had 322 invitations for the year, with roughly one-third of the events jammed into the months of August and September. On two successive nights, Aug. 29-30, there were 12 fund-raisers each--mainly breakfasts, receptions and dinners. Most were priced at $500, but some went as high as $1,000. It would have cost his clients $14,750 to attend all two dozen. Last Wednesday, he could have dropped in on another 14 and spent $7,700.

But his clients have cut back on their donations and his lobbying firm now attends only about a third of the fund-raisers. “Money’s tight,” he noted. “These are corporate dollars and there’s competition for them.”

Meanwhile, legislators have become more aggressive predators. “They used to just mail out the invitations and expect you to show up,” he said. “Now they’re calling more. One day, 25 different legislators called me about their events. They all give you the same speech: ‘I hate this, but I’ve got to do it.’ It takes guts to say no. They’re aghast when you do.”

Lawmakers will deny there’s a link between their treatment of bills and any money coughed up by affected interests. They insist there’s a problem of “perception,” not reality.

But my lobbyist source recalled this recent conversation with a committee chairman:

Legislator: “I’m really disappointed you’re not going to be at my event.”

Lobbyist: “We contributed at your earlier event this year.”

Legislator: “That was then, this is now!”

Lobbyist: “Money’s just tight.”

Legislator: “Well, hope you guys aren’t going to need anything.”

*

That, of course, borders on attempted extortion or bribery. It’s a prison offense to barter legislative favors for return favors, such as money. Prudent people now don’t even mention bills and bucks in the same conversation after the Capitol FBI sting that led to 14 convictions on political corruption.

Shakedowns have become more subtle. But legislators still excel at fund raising, if little else.

About $150 million was raised by legislative candidates during the 1993-94 election cycle, according to the secretary of state. Ninety percent of donations came from outside a legislator’s district, says the California Public Interest Research Group. Seventy percent was invested--there’s no better word--by business interests.

The public interest group plans to sponsor a 1996 ballot initiative that would drastically limit campaign contributions and spending. It would also severely limit non-district donations. Common Cause is circulating petitions for a rival, less stringent initiative and is teamed with Perot’s United We Stand America, the League of Women Voters and the American Assn. of Retired Persons. Among other things, it would limit contributions and spending and ban donations in non-election years.

Neither proposal contains public financing. Sponsors believe the public is so fed up with these legislators, it never would provide tax money to help pay for their elections.

But you get what you pay for. Certainly, the special interests have, even if they’re strong-armed into paying.