A Very Good Bad Example

It’s wonderful to see that Chuck Quackenbush still has a statewide function. The scandal-ridden former insurance commissioner remains useful as a walking, breathing advertisement for the strictest statewide campaign finance reform.

The latest revelation by The Times’ Virginia Ellis--that before he left office in disgrace, Quackenbush transferred to the accounts of his wife’s failed political campaign $565,000 in mostly insurance industry contributions--ought to stoke more fires of outrage. Not only did this booty allow the Quackenbush couple to pay off personal loans taken out for her state Senate campaign, she paid herself $52,000 in interest. As far as the lawyers in Sacramento can tell, it was legal.

In any other profession, this sort of fund transfer, a half-million from the husband’s business to the wife’s accounts, would call for hard time. With such an example before them, any Sacramento lawmaker who defends the current unlimited campaign contributions and political fund swaps should be--what? It’s hard to think of a harsh enough punishment.

This is not the behavior that voters hoped for when they passed strict term limits, intending to get rid of the professional politicians they blamed for sleaze and corruption. Quackenbush has proved how thoroughly a short-timer can indulge in sleaze. He’s no doubt a special case, but why should this sort of behavior even be possible?

A measure, Proposition 34, already placed on the November ballot by the state Legislature, would rein in some of the excesses, including transfers between campaigns, and deserves support, but it still leaves open enough doors to populate a Restoration comedy. Consumer groups are asking for a package of tough reforms, including disclosure of more records, aimed just at the Insurance Commission. Lawmakers can start by passing that, but they shouldn’t underestimate how much of the rage against Quackenbush will spill over the whole state political establishment.