James E. Rogan

It was a scant four months ago that James E. Rogan, congressman, impeachment prosecutor and all-around prominent Republican, exited stage right.

Defeated by Democrat Adam Schiff in the most expensive House election battle in history, he left his Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena district and returned to Washington where, he quipped, “You’ll probably find me in the streets in a couple of months with a sign that says, ‘Will interview for food.’ ”

Instead, his plate is full.

He has been hired as a partner in a Washington law firm. There is movement underway to have him considered for a presidential appointment as director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He has become involved in a political action committee that will bankroll Republican candidates. And, not surprisingly, he has not ruled out running for elected office again someday.

The Times recently talked to Rogan about his post-congressional life and his plans for the future.

*

Question: Tell us about your new job. You’ll be working in Washington?

Answer: I am staying here for the short term. One of the things that I liked about the firm was the fact that the first day I went in and talked to them, they told me they were interested in opening a California office, and they asked if, down the road, I would consider doing that. And I just jumped at the chance. That’s a real priority for Chris [his wife, Christine Rogan] and me, to come back home. We’re both native Californians. We have no family here. The only reason I didn’t come right home after the election and start interviewing is because my daughters are in school. So for me, after having just gone through the political equivalent of World War III, I would have had to immediately say goodbye to Chris and the girls for another two months to come back home and just keep interviewing. So I found the best of both worlds. I found a firm that will hire me now and, when I’m ready, and when the firm is ready, let me move on back to California.

Q: Will you be involved in lobbying?

A: Legally, I can’t lobby for a year. Down the road certainly, I may do some government relations work. But I’m going to work in intellectual property areas, trade, commerce, telecommunications, energy. Those are all the areas that my Congressional committee assignments were in, and this is a firm that has a fairly substantial shop in all of those areas. And I’ll do some consulting on the side. I’ve also been maintaining a fairly busy speaking schedule. I’m doing some writing. I may do some daily radio commentaries. So there’s more than enough for me to keep busy.

Q: What about the new political action committee you’re involved with?

A: We actually started the Patriot PAC in January, but we did a formal kickoff for it at the recent state Republican convention in Sacramento. The purpose for me in doing this is twofold. One, I want to remain active in the political scene because it’s what I love. I found that right after the election, when one loses a race, everybody just assumes that one is simply looking for a place to go run the next time. And I don’t want to do that. I don’t think that’s necessarily a productive thing for a candidate who’s been unsuccessful to do. I found that something I read by President Richard Nixon years ago is true. He was giving some advice to a prospective presidential candidate. And he said to learn everything you absolutely can before you announce. Because the day you announce, there’s no more time to learn. You spend all of your time being reactive. And it’s really true. These last six years of my life, I’ve been able to put in maybe 10% of the time that I would like to have to really delving into the issues from an in-depth perspective. And having time for reflective thought. There’s just no time for that when one represents an extremely competitive district. I’ve really enjoyed these last couple of months because, when I read the newspaper now, it’s because I want to and not because I have to. I’m not rushing through it just trying to absorb as much as I can with a few moments of review. I have a chance to think a little bit more about the debate and just approach things from a different pace.

Q: That’s an interesting commentary on governing.

A: It’s really true. Most politicians won’t admit it. They like to feel that if they somehow admit that they’re less than an oracle on every issue, it’s a sign of weakness. So most of them are doing a good job of faking it. I want to take this time to recharge my batteries, but also do what Nixon did. Nixon talked about those years out of office as being some of the most important to him because [they] gave him a chance to think and reflect and then determine whether that was the thing for him to do, and I’ll do the same thing. Maybe down the road I’ll run again. I would like to. But I’m in no hurry for it. The nation will survive without me. That’s a very long-winded answer just to say it gives me a chance to keep my toe in the water, politically. The other thing is, I found that as a candidate in a marginal district, there’s an inordinate amount of time spent fund-raising and worrying whether the cavalry will be there when you need them. And this gives me a chance now to be part of the cavalry and to, after having had people help me for so many different cycles back to back, help other people. I look forward to that. I always enjoyed fund-raising for other candidates much more than I enjoyed fund-raising for myself. I think it’s that Catholic guilt of having to go and talk yourself up versus talking somebody else up.

Q: Returning to the Patriot PAC, does the world really need another political action committee? Why do you think it was necessary to form this group and what are its goals?

A: I’ll take the goals part first. The real purpose is to maintain a Republican majority in Washington and help try to secure one in Sacramento. It’s important to me because I’ve been in both venues. I know how much better the state and the country are under Republican control, and I know how much worse it is when leftists are in control. Does the world need another PAC? I know there’s a whole bunch of people out there with PACs. But I had a unique experience. I raised money in all 50 states, and I had the most expensive House race in American history. That was the downside. The upside is I had the most donors of anybody in the House. And for the most part, I think my donor base might be unique. They didn’t give to me because I happened to be the Republican nominee in the 27th Congressional District. They gave to my campaign because of me. I want to try to identify races and candidates that are worthy, many of whom might otherwise be under the radar screen, and help those candidates.

My model for it is (state Senate Republican leader) Jim Brulte. In May of 1994, I watched Brulte and his small underfunded leadership team start looking at races that nobody was thinking much about. And by making some good strategic decisions in the last couple of weeks and moving some money where it was needed and would make a difference, we went from 33 Republicans in the Assembly to 41, and took control of the majority. A lot of times, I think, PAC directors are moving money around to candidates because they feel they need to, or because they feel it’ll give them more access to a committee chairman, or it will give their pet legislation or their pet project a leg up. I’m not looking for any bills. I already know all the chairmen and, if anything, they owe me, not the other way around. So I’m not looking to glorify myself or try to pursue some legislative interest. I’m doing it for one purpose. And that is to elect Republicans.

Q: Electing Republicans seems to have become a formidable task in this state. What has happened to the Republican Party in California?

A: There’s a good book out that I just read a few weeks ago called “The Right Moment,” a historical analysis of Ronald Reagan’s first race for governor. And when I read it, it was stunning to me because when they were talking about the post-1964 election, it looked like you were reading the front page of The Times today. You had liberalism on the rise, conservatism was dead, the Republicans were infighting, the moderates were blaming Barry Goldwater for being too far to the right, the conservative Goldwater people were blaming the Nelson Rockefeller people for splitting the party. In California you had a popularly elected governor who had trounced his opponent. Both houses of the Legislature were heavily dominated by Democrats. The Democrats held every statewide constitutional office except secretary of state. And it was talking about how the Republican party was demoralized, dejected, split in two, rent asunder. And 18 months later, Ronald Reagan swept to victory and he took, as I recall, the Republicans into the majority in the state Legislature. So the pendulum swings both ways. And Gov. Gray Davis--if he had an aura of invincibility for the first half of his term, it’s not there now. The question is whether we can field a strong bunch of candidates and whether they’ll be able to raise money.

Q: Will a Republican presidency help the situation in California?

A: It has to help. Talk about swings; it wasn’t that long ago that Pete Wilson was down 30 in the polls and then turned around and stomped his opponent by 17. I think he gets a bad rap, by the way, as though he was some kind of divisive force in the Hispanic community. He supported Proposition 187 and he supported 209, and so did a majority of Hispanic voters in this state, but that always seems to get lost in the rhetoric. We have just not been very good at communicating our message of independence from government and self-reliance. If we get candidates who are able to do that, we’re going to deserve to win, and we will win. And it’s my hope to help to recruit some of those folks.

Q: Regarding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office job, why does the field of intellectual property attract you?

A: The basis of our intellectual property law goes back more than 200 years to the creation of a patent office in the United States Constitution. Since then, we have had fairly consistent legislation, with respect to copyrights, patents and trademarks. Now we find ourselves suddenly in the new economy, continually trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn’t work. From a domestic standpoint, we have to blow out all of the old ways of thinking, and we’re going to have to develop an entire new paradigm on how we protect intellectual property in the information age. On the international level, we are being pirated to the tune of untold billions and billions of dollars every year. If any other nation on the face of the Earth owned the intellectual property that the United States owns, we would treat thefts of it as kin to an act of war. In America, we’re extremely lax on it. We fire off letters of complaint, and every now and then we’ll raise an issue with the World Trade Organization. But we have not been aggressive in protecting our intellectual property, or those who are the developers of it. The exciting aspect of it, from a legal standpoint and from a policy-making standpoint, is that the people who are going to be working in these areas will be in the forefront of, not only a new area of law, but an area of law of significance that I don’t think we’ve been able to comprehend.