Moorhead Pays His Respects to Former Adversary Barbara Jordan

It was 1974, and the nation’s television sets were filled with images of Watergate. Two freshman lawmakers, Barbara Jordan and Carlos J. Moorhead, found themselves in the center of the action.

Both Jordan (D-Tex.) and Moorhead (R-Glendale) sat on the House Judiciary Committee at the time, and both were grappling with the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. As they would do many times during their careers, Jordan and Moorhead took opposing views.

Moorhead, an upstart conservative, stuck with the president. He would change his mind only after the release of the so-called “smoking gun” tape shortly before Nixon resigned.

Jordan, on the other hand, is still remembered for the words she uttered on July 25 of that year, arguing for Nixon to go.

“I was not included in ‘We, the people,’ ” she said. “I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’ . . . My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”

Jordan died this week of pneumonia. One of those who fondly recalled her was her old colleague and adversary.

“I didn’t agree with her on a lot of things, but I don’t think you have to agree with someone to respect their intellect,” Moorhead said. “She was a very bright lady who thought for herself. You didn’t want to get on a TV show with her because she got all the attention.”

On that point, Moorhead spoke from experience.

He and Jordan appeared together on the “Today” show in 1972 as incoming members of Congress. Jordan, the first black woman to represent a Southern state in the House, stole the show.

Lingering health problems forced Jordan to retire from the House in 1979, but she returned to Washington recently to chair a bipartisan panel on immigration reform.

In that new position, she parted ways with another San Fernando Valley-area lawmaker, speaking out against a proposal by Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States. “To deny birthright citizenship would derail this engine of American liberty,” she said.

A Tangled Web

It was only weeks ago that the office of Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan boasted a site on the World Wide Web that included a glowing biography of hizzoner and a photo gallery showing Riordan posing with children and making ceremonial speeches.

But surf the Net today and it appears that the photos and biographical info were eaten by a black hole in cyberspace.

In reality, the mayor’s office removed the page after a Times article noted the almost self-aggrandizing nature of the taxpayer-funded site.

In fact, the article prompted freshman Councilman Mike Feuer to instruct the city’s lawyers and computer experts to draft guidelines for the city’s Web pages to ensure that they are not used for political purposes.

The mayor’s Web site is now a mere shell of its former self. It only contains Riordan’s City Hall address and phone number. Another site includes Riordan’s vision for improving constituent access to City Hall through the use of high-tech means, such as Web pages.

Riordan’s spokeswoman Noelia Rodriguez said the mayor’s original Web site was “a draft” that was not meant to be launched on the Internet. “I don’t know how it got in,” she said, saying she was embarrassed that it got online.

But Rodriguez added that the mayor’s office is working on a final version of the page and will put it on the Internet within six weeks or so. This time, she said the page will be reviewed extensively before it is launched.

Movers and Shakers

As part of the commemorations of the second anniversary of the Northridge earthquake, Mayor Riordan and other city officials met for lunch at, where else?--the Epicenter restaurant in downtown Los Angeles.

The meal began with San Andreas Fault soup, a combination of cream and brown-colored bean soups, with a thin, zig-zag strip of sour cream separating the two soups like a fault line.

Double Take

Republican state Assemblyman James E. Rogan of Glendale believes in less government, and for him that means fewer laws imposed on California residents.

To that end, Rogan has introduced two identical measures to limit the number of bills that state lawmakers can introduce.

But he has a good explanation for this apparent conflict in logic.

Members of the Assembly are currently limited to proposing 50 bills per year, while state senators are limited to 65. Under Rogan’s measures, the limit would be cut to 25 for Assembly members and 30 for senators.

“I have yet to meet a single constituent who thinks we need some 7,000 new laws per session,” Rogan said in a news release. “Without this reform, the California State Legislature hears more bills in a session than does the United States House of Representatives.”

But if too many bills are the problem, why has Rogan introduced two identical measures?

Jane Barnett, Rogan’s spokeswoman, explained that one measure is a proposed law while the other is a policy measure that is not legally binding but sets a guideline for the Legislature.

Rogan introduced the policy measure just in case the proposed law fails. Both measures were approved this week by the Assembly Rules Committee.

By the way, Barnett said that even though he introduced the identical measures, Rogan is “well within the proposed limit.”

Reform Movement

The steps of Agoura Hills City Hall seem like an obscure place to launch a statewide campaign reform initiative.

But there stood the reformers with a banner, a chain saw and a shovel waiting to tout their plans to reinvent campaign financing.

Californians Against Political Corruption, backed by the California Public Interest Research Group, known as CalPIRG, unveiled a measure they hope will qualify for the November ballot.

The idea, they say, is to squelch the influence of special interests and get officeholders to pay attention to constituents.

“Politicians don’t listen to the average Joe at home,” said Karen Jones, an activist with the Ward Valley Coalition, who spoke at the event.

Organizers also believe campaign spending caps would curb negative campaigning and bring back issue-oriented politics.

The announcement, made at 27 City Halls around the state, came on the same day that another campaign reform initiative, sponsored by Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, filed their completed petitions with the state.

Why competing measures?

The folks connected with CalPIRG are unsatisfied with the Common Cause-sponsored initiative because it doesn’t go far enough, said CalPIRG spokesman Doug Phelps.

Specifically, the CalPIRG plan would require that 75% of campaign contributions come from within the political district, ban lobbyists from contributing at all and set stringent spending caps on campaigns.

Individuals and political action committees could contribute no more than $200 in a statewide race and $100 in a legislative race. State Assembly primary candidates would be limited to spending $75,000--pocket change compared to the megabucks spent now.

Just about the only free ride goes to well-heeled candidates, who would be able to spend their own fortunes--at least up to the spending cap--but would be permitted to loan their campaigns just $10,000.

In other words, the measure wields a scythe, not a scalpel. Its organizers are unfazed by the legal challenge they expect to encounter.

“Every moral progress in the country . . . was ruled unconstitutional at one time,” Phelps said. “The courts need to catch up with the people.”

Lacey reported from Washington, D.C., Martin and Hill-Holtzman from Los Angeles.

In Her Own Words

‘I was not included in “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.” . . . My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.’