Encouraging the Cynics: GOP Plays Shell Game With Late Contributions

Don’t you, deep down, love it when somebody is nabbed in a hypocrisy. Especially a politician.

Columnists certainly do. And exposure of Sacramento’s latest hypocrisy was a nice welcome-back gift last week after a month off recuperating from shoulder surgery. It brought a smile, while unfortunately stoking my long-simmering cynicism, fanned by hearing too many pols preach one thing and watching them practice another.

The hypocrisy stemmed from this:

Since time immemorial, the Republican answer for campaign finance reform has been “full disclosure.” Timely and full disclosure of all political contributions. No need to impose tight caps on donations and spending that restrict our freedoms. Even more sinful would be public financing of campaigns.

Don’t fret about special interests buying off politicians with bundles of campaign bucks. Trust the people. Disclose all donations and let voters decide whether they reek.

Sunlight being the best disinfectant, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said long ago.

Ask most any Republican -- one exception being U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- and you’ll hear that spiel.

So here’s what created the latest hypocrisy:

You may have read about it Thursday in a Times story by Sacramento reporters Virginia Ellis and Dan Morain. Days before the November election, they wrote, “Republicans solicited nearly $1 million from a Los Angeles insurance company and channeled it to key races around California in a way that hid the source of the contributions.”

In brief, 21st Century Insurance Group wrote checks ranging from $25,000 to $200,000 to the state Republican Party and 15 county GOP committees. The company waited until it no longer was required to disclose the donations before election day. Party officials, in sleight of hand, then shifted the money around California -- from county to county -- before slipping it to six legislative candidates, all of whom were in tight races and won.

It was a money-laundering scheme to avoid timely disclosure of suspect insurance donations and also, as The Times story said, to “circumvent campaign contribution limits.”

“This was just an outrage,” asserts Bob Stern, co-director of the Center for Governmental Studies.

By law, 21st Century could have given each candidate only $3,000 directly. But it could give a party committee $25,000 to, in turn, pass off to some candidate. The company also could provide additional money for so-called party building, such as voter registration. Meanwhile, the party could donate unlimited amounts to a candidate’s campaign.

This convoluted shell game was concocted three years ago by politicians -- mainly Democrats -- to permit maximum commingling of funds. Laundering. Voters approved it as Proposition 34. Even more important for the pols, Prop. 34 headed off the likelihood of a much tougher reform.

Then just before the last election, Stern notes, “Republicans hoisted Democrats on their own petard.”

But so much for the Republicans’ championing of full and timely disclosure and the voters’ need to know.

“No one wants to deceive the public, but our job is to win elections,” says California GOP spokesman Rob Stutzman. “We exist to win....

“Knowing where money is going is valuable information [for Democrats]. If you can go stealth, that’s what you do.”

Stutzman is the official party mouthpiece. The chief suspect here is Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga, a key member of the state GOP group that directs party expenditures. He has been ducking reporters.

“We’re confident we played within the rules,” Stutzman insists.

Not everybody is so sure, including new Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, a Democrat. He’s looking into whether the laundering was legal or illegal and may ask the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate.

“It certainly doesn’t pass the smell test,” Shelley says.

Both he and Senate leader John Burton (D-San Francisco), Prop. 34’s author, want to close the loophole that allowed 21st Century to donate nearly $1 million to the Republican Party and keep it secret from the public until months after the election.

Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi would take the big step: public financing of state campaigns. The Democrat says: “It’s the best investment the public can make. Then the [politician’s] allegiance is owed to the public.”

When that fight comes, you’ll hear Republicans arguing again for full disclosure. And it’ll be good for a laugh.