(2 of 2)
Fund raising also forces state legislators into an undue preoccupation with relatively minor issues that are backed by contributors willing to spend heavily. These are known cynically as "juice bills" for the cash that can | be squeezed out of them. One prime example: repeal of unitary taxation, which would save foreign companies operating in California as much as $500 million in state corporate taxes. Strongly backed by Japanese and British interests, the bill has been debated in each of the past three sessions but has yet to come to a vote. Insiders complain that legislators are dawdling because they have become hooked on the thousands of dollars of lobbyist lucre it generates. Another example: between 1979 and 1982, California's oil industry spent $2.5 million to prevent the imposition of a severance tax, which is a levy on oil shipped out of the state.
Ironically, many of the present excesses stem from laudable reforms of the past. In 1974, California passed a measure requiring detailed disclosure of campaign contributions and spending. But the law's conflict-of-interest provisions, which forbid many practices that give the appearance of quid pro quo fund raising, apply only to local officials, not to state legislators. The disclosure rules, moreover, enable politicians to trace the source of their opponents' funding and seek parity.
California's obsession with campaign cash is compounded by the growth of so- called transfers, money controlled by legislative leaders and doled out to loyal supporters. Though both parties employ the system, by far the biggest transfers trove belongs to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a Democrat, who raised $4.2 million in contributions that he could use in his own or other 1984 campaigns. Brown pumped nearly $1.2 million of that bundle into 14 other races, making the powerful speaker California's largest single political contributor. "It's an absolute arms race," admits Brown, who only last December picked up a cool $700,000 at a fund raiser he gave in Los Angeles, featuring such celebrities as Actors Morgan Fairchild and George Hamilton. "I do marvelous events," Brown says coyly.
Transfers are outlawed under the recommendations of the 21-member commission that studied California's campaign financing for 18 months and issued a report last October. The commission's other proposals include a prohibition on fund raising during nonelection years, when many contributions are clearly intended to influence legislation rather than the ballot box, and caps on both spending and contributions. The panel also favors limited public financing of election campaigns, a system used by eleven other states.
Whether the reforms stand a chance of becoming law, however, remains highly problematical. Brown, who supports the recommendations, is uncertain that voters are yet sufficiently riled by the current system to demand a new one. "It's an insiders' issue," he says. "There's no momentum building at the moment." Indeed, California voters have indicated considerable resistance to public financing; Republican Governor George Deukmejian has vetoed such measures. The commission evidently had some doubt that its report would lead to immediate change. It projected $50 million in campaign spending for state legislative races in next fall's election and as much as $87 million by 1990.