Lockyer’s Legislation

The Times managed to cram two false and unfair charges against me into a single editorial, “Self-Interest Days in Sacramento” (Sept. 13).

First, you criticize me for a “sneaky maneuver,” the reallocation of 1% of the Legislature’s operating budget. The facts are that I discussed with leaders of both parties very serious inequities in the allocation of funds between the Senate and Assembly in the weeks before the final budget document was drafted. No one disagreed with the case I made, but, not surprisingly, no Assembly leader was willing to face retribution from angry Assembly colleagues for supporting my proposal.

Nevertheless, the deadline arrived for a decision and a vote. Far from being “sneaky,” my action was taken openly and publicly, just as in every other state budget, a copy of which was on every Assembly member’s desk for several days. I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to conclude either that no Assembly member read as far as Page 3 or that no Assembly member objected.

Weeks after this budget was passed by a two-thirds vote in both houses, Assembly members got mad and hijacked at least 73 Senate bills, sacrificing important state policy concerns in an attempt to replenish their office budgets. If I “craftily” blocked them from getting away with this outrageous act, I certainly don’t regret it.

Your editorial suggests that my opposition to a card room commission bill has been influenced by campaign contributions. To support that suggestion, you cite figures that include contributions from racing and Indian gaming interests, two groups which would be absolutely unaffected by this legislation. More importantly, you utterly disregard the basic fact that nearly every gambling interest, inside and outside California, opposes my position and supports the bill, as does The Times. Gambling interests understand that this bill opens the door to an unlimited expansion of gambling before the people and the Legislature have decided whether or not any more gambling is desirable at all.

But you fail to note that local governments and the attorney general already have full statutory authority to regulate card rooms without this new bureaucracy, and I have repeatedly pledged support for Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s effort to get the resources he needs to do the job he’s not doing today. You also overlook the fact that, at the author’s request, I called for a vote on this legislation and it was defeated on a vote of 1-3. But the supporters are now drawing out the debate by “sneakily” amending the legislation into another bill. So just who is trying to milk this issue?

BILL LOCKYER

Senate President Pro Tem

D-Hayward

*

* The card room industry could be involved in “money-laundering, loan-sharking and extortion.” It’s no wonder that California’s Senate wants to regulate the industry: All that money, and they aren’t getting any. Remember back when “senator” was an honorable word?

ROBERT SOMERVILLE

Brea