Fund-Raising Dominates Bills, Ex-Senator Says

Providing a rare insider’s view, a retired state senator testified in federal court Thursday that campaign contributions have come to dominate the outcome of bills in the Legislature.

Former Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia) offered his perception of the influence political donations play as a defense witness on behalf of the Proposition 208 political reform law.

“It’s pervasive and in many respects dominates in terms of outcome,” testified Keene, whose job as Senate majority leader for seven years included collecting major sums for Democratic candidates.

Keene represented north coastal and inland regions in the Assembly and Senate for two decades before his abrupt midterm retirement in 1992.

“I was heavily engaged in fund-raising. It was getting to me,” Keene said. “I felt I had to leave for my own reasons, for my own emotional health, I guess.”

Keene described the Legislature as an institution consumed by reelection ambitions and political fund-raising at the expense of shaping public policy.

In a rare public disclosure, he said legislators and lobbyists use unspoken understandings and code words to transmit messages about political money.

Keene did not, however, identify legislators or anyone else who behaved in a way that might be considered criminal in exchange for campaign contributions.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, who is hearing the case without a jury, agreed to let Keene testify without naming specific cases or individuals. But he warned that without specifics, he would not give Keene’s testimony as much weight in arriving at a ruling as he otherwise might.

The former legislator also testified at one point that despite the influence of campaign contributions, some men and women in the Legislature vote on the merits of bills and the dictates of their consciences.

The centerpiece of Proposition 208, which took effect Jan. 1 after it was approved by voters in 1996, restricts the amount of contributions that can be given to state and local candidates.

It also prohibits lobbyists from making or arranging contributions, bans fund-raising during nonelection years, limits campaign expenditures, bars transfers of funds between candidates and imposes criminal penalties for violations.

Opponents of Proposition 208, including the state Democratic and Republican parties, organized labor and abortion opponents, charge that the law unconstitutionally violates their right to free speech and political association.

Sponsors of Proposition 208, including California Common Cause, have said it will curb the alleged corruptive link between big campaign contributions and governmental actions.

Keene, currently a teacher at Stanford University’s school of business, testified that the development of public policy by the Legislature has taken a distant back seat to the “preoccupation of fund-raising.”

In some cases, Keene said, unspoken signals and the “use of code words” between a lobbyist and a reelection-conscious legislator convey an unmistakable message.

As an example, he said a lobbyist seeking action on a bill that may be against the best interests of a legislator’s home district might tell the lawmaker, “I know this is asking a lot . . . but we’ve always been there for you and we’ll be there for you again.”

In another case, Keene said, a lobbyist leaving a legislator’s office might pause in the doorway and tell the legislator, “By the way, I told your secretary, we’ll be at your fund-raiser next Tuesday.”

“It’s part of the system of understandings and code words,” Keene said. “The more you do it, the less wrong it seems to feel.

“Over a period, you build up denial mechanisms over what you are doing and why you are doing it,” Keene said.

He said he believed Proposition 208 will not bring about overnight miracles but “I think it will go a long way to displace money as the principal currency of the California Legislature.”