SACRAMENTO — A businessman who wanted to talk to an influential state legislator about a problem with a toxic waste permit was told that a $5,000 contribution to a campaign fund-raising dinner would buy him half an hour of the lawmaker's time.
And for an additional $5,000, the man was informed, he could sit at the head table, thereby guaranteeing another conversation about his problem.
Senate Minority Leader James W. Nielsen (R-Woodland), while declining to name names, cited this as an example of the political fund-raising "extortion" and "strong-arm tactics" going on in California.
A recent report by a blue-ribbon commission summarized the situation this way:
"California is witnessing a new political gold rush. Reporters warn that legislators are being corrupted with money. Contributors complain they are hounded with incessant fund-raising appeals. Lobbyists protest they are covertly shaken down with threats of adverse legislation. Candidates report that some spend 50% to 70% of their time raising money. Incumbents vastly out-raise challengers. Newcomers are deterred from politics."
Nielsen and other lawmakers hope a campaign finance reform package, which they contend would reduce the influence of special-interest money on the Legislature, will be passed this year and signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian.
The rub, however, is that both political parties deep down fear that tinkering with the present system could well give the other side an advantage. So each party, somewhat half-heartedly, pushes its own particular brand of reform while aggressively opposing the other's.
Deukmejian vetoed a campaign finance reform bill two years ago. And some legislators privately would prefer no changes at all in the present system. Others argue that it will take a ballot initiative to do anything substantial about solving the problem, and one is in the works. But the voters, by nearly 2 to 1, rejected a campaign reform proposition in 1984.
One crucial problem for reformers, they say, is the lack of any widespread public concern about how political campaigns are financed. Some say it will take a major scandal to kindle enough concern to pressure lawmakers into reform.
"Every year, the influence of money on both political parties in California increases, and the influence of ordinary people decreases," said Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Benicia).
Who would be the winners and losers under campaign finance reform?
The present system favors incumbents over challengers because people already in office have more ability to raise money from special interests seeking favors from the Legislature. It also currently favors the Democratic Party over the Republican Party because Democrats control the Legislature and hold more influence over the life and death of bills.
Depending upon how it is written, a campaign finance reform plan generally would tend to give challengers a better break against incumbents, many experts argue. But exactly who the winners and losers would be is a subject of debate.
For example, some experts contend that partial public campaign financing would make incumbents worry more about challengers. Others argue it would take 100% public financing to give newcomers a real chance against well-entrenched officeholders.
There also is a wide divergence of opinion among legislators on what should and should not be included in a campaign finance reform plan.
Spending ceilings are opposed by some incumbents of both parties who know that such restrictions would curb their ability to vastly outspend serious challengers. Other incumbents who are not faced with serious election foes insist that spending limits must be established as soon as possible. Positions can change from election to election.
Proposals to ban the transfer of campaign funds from one lawmaker to another and to prohibit fund raising in non-election years are opposed by many Democrats, who insist that Republicans generally have an easier time raising money.
"The problem is that Democrats have to scratch for their money to accumulate it," said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). "The Republicans don't have to do that."
GOP members oppose public financing of political campaigns because, they say, citizens object to using taxes for this purpose. As evidence, they point to polls and the voters' rejection in 1984 of a proposal for partial public financing.
Privately, Republicans also fear that public financing would help Democrats more than it would them because the GOP generally is successful at raising money on its own from wealthy individuals and businesses.
Democrats want public financing to help even things up against the GOP if, as most reformers advocate, the transfer of political money from one legislator to another is banned.
