Money Game, Not Davis’ Mastery of It, Is at Heart of Problem

Gov. Gray Davis has raised an eye-popping $67 million in campaign funds since taking office. He has reached into the pockets of business execs, labor bosses, obliging appointees and billionaire buddies.

Many donors have benefited from his official actions, some personally.

And what does this make Davis? It makes him the all-time champion gubernatorial fund-raiser.

Does it make him corrupt? The whole system is corrupt. The annoying truth is, Davis works this system better than any politician ever has.

Legally, far as anybody can tell. Works right up to the line.

“Gray’s an easy mark [for critics],” says one veteran lobbyist. “He’s not charming at all about it.”

Not only is Davis the best, he relishes playing the game. Plays it without shame, never blushing while begging. After all, he reasons, some rich opponent -- an Al Checchi or a Bill Simon Jr. -- may be financing his own campaign.

The governor has collected at least $27 million this year alone, $3.6 million during the first three weeks of October. He’s pouring $3 million per week into TV ads, but as of Oct. 19 still had $12.1 million in cash. Republican Simon had only $1.2 million.

“That color you see in the faces of Republicans is green for envy rather than the purple of outrage,” says Garry South, Davis’ chief strategist.

“Pay for play,” cries Simon, accusing Davis of selling public policy for private donations. “A coin-operated governor.”

That would be illegal, of course. There are odorous episodes -- like the prison guards union giving Davis $800,000 and its members getting a 37% pay hike -- but nothing illegal ever has been proved, despite Simon’s clumsy attempts.

Because Simon can’t generate much money -- potential donors consider him a lousy investment -- he has personally “loaned” his campaign $10.25 million. That raises its own ethical questions.

If Simon were to pull an upset Nov. 5, the new governor-elect could hit up special interests for money to put directly into his pocket as repayment of the personal loans. These would be legal shakedowns.

“My criticism of Davis,” says reformer Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, “is that he leaves the impression that, in order to get his attention, you have to contribute to his campaign. He has carried that much farther than anyone else.”

That certainly is the impression of most Capitol lobbyists.

“I can’t look into the mind of every donor and tell you why they’re giving,” South says. “Do some donors give because they want something in return? Sure. You’d be a fool to say some didn’t.

“But that’s less important than whether a recipient of the contribution acts in an official capacity to do something in return. That’s illegal.”

That’s the repetitive Davis spin -- any politician’s spin: There’s absolutely no link between a political donation and a policy decision.

Yeah, right, say the lobbyists. Even a governor can’t repeal human nature. In this system, donors give to get. Politicians know favors often must be returned.

One experienced lobbyist explains his donation decisions this way: “As the manager of my client’s money, I have a fiduciary duty to invest it wisely. I think I may get favorable treatment or I wouldn’t invest the money.”

It’s why Sacramento Democrats, from Davis to rookie legislators, have been showered with many times more special interest dollars than Republicans. The GOP has no power.

Beyond that, this centrist governor has been regarded by the business lobby as its protector against the liberal Legislature. So it has helped bankroll him.

Call it a protection racket.

It’s the system we’ve set up -- “we” being especially the courts. They’ve eviscerated some voters’ reform attempts that were opposed by the political establishment. Got to keep those big bucks rolling into the campaign industry and the politicians’ slush funds.

Proposition 34, approved in 2000, will take effect for the next gubernatorial race and limit individual contributions to $20,000. That’s a start.

The best answer is public financing of campaigns with spending limits. Some version. Like other states have. Either the public buys the politicians, or the private interests continue to.

Conservative Arizona voted in a “clean money” public financing system four years ago. Swear off private money, agree to spending limits, get public funds.

“People turn on the candidates for raising lots of money, but it’s the system in place that makes it possible -- and actually necessary,” says Arizona State University professor Ruth Jones, who heads the Arizona Clean Elections Commission.

Don’t like our governor’s aggressive fund-raising? You shouldn’t. Nor any state politician’s groveling before private investors. But blame our corrupt system. And change it.