Prop. 208 Not Strong Enough Pesticide

SACRAMENTO — Beware the bugs. They’re back. A new generation, just hatched. Happens after every political reform.

Reform is like a pesticide. It’s concocted to eradicate pests and their slime. But like some insects, politicians can adapt. They’re capable of evolving tougher and smarter and warding off the insecticide.

Political Darwinism: survival of the swiftest, the shrewdest and sometimes the sleaziest.

The latest pesticide is Proposition 208, which California voters approved overwhelmingly last November. They hoped to control the corrupting influence of special interest money in state politics.

It might help, might not. What we now know is there are bugs in the larva stage. Looking for loopholes.

Proposition 208 has many ingredients. Among them:

* A ban on lobbyist campaign contributions to candidates.

* A timeout for statewide candidates on accepting donations until June, one year before the primary election. For legislative candidates, the timeout lasts until next January, six months before the primary.

* Maximum contributions of $1,000 for statewide candidates and $500 for legislators from individuals and most PACs (political action committees).

Loopholes already have been discovered.

*

A couple of the loopholes look like this:

* Political parties can be conduits for money from lobbyists to candidates. That’s because candidates still can squeeze lobbyists for donations to parties, at any time. Later, the parties can transfer the laundered “soft” money to candidates.

* Lobbyists--anybody--can give political parties far more than candidates, up to $5,000 per year.

That’s fine on the surface. California’s political parties should be strengthened; they’ve been pathetically weak. But let’s be honest: Lobbyists normally don’t give money to help a party; they give to ingratiate themselves with powerful officeholders.

The first candidate to discover the party conduit was Dave Stirling, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s top aide, who is running for his boss’ job. Solicitations were mailed to Sacramento lobbyists inviting them to “please join Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Dave Stirling and the California Republican Party” at a $500-per-person cocktail reception.

An attached letter from the chief deputy AG noted it was all perfectly legal. He added that “as a prospective Republican candidate for attorney general . . . it is my sincere desire to make sure the [GOP] will have the resources it needs to contribute the maximum allowable amount to candidates . . . most certainly for my campaign.”

Under 208, parties can contribute up to 25% of a candidate’s spending limit; for attorney general, the limit is $3.5 million.

The key nuisance here is “earmarking.” Legally, none of the lobbyists’ donations can be earmarked for a candidate. The party won’t earmark the money, but it certainly will appreciate it and send some back to Stirling. “I’m going to apply for [financial] help,” he acknowledged.

The fund-raiser has been postponed because the Fair Political Practices Commission ruled that Stirling--er, the party--even can solicit contributions from lobbyists who work the Justice Department. So additional solicitations will be mailed.

Today, the state Democratic Party will hold a similar reception--at $1,000 per pop--using the two top legislative leaders and Vice President Al Gore.

Gore is a curiosity and a celebrity, but the legislative leaders wield the clout that moves lobbyists to write checks. Gore wrangled an invitation from Senate leader Bill Lockyer and Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante to address a rare joint session of the Legislature. Then, state party Chairman Art Torres seized the moment to hold a fund-raiser.

Unlike the GOP, however, Torres says the Democratic Party will not be mailing checks to candidates. Instead, the soft money will be spent to help candidates indirectly, such as with voter registration and generic anti-Republican hit pieces.

He adds, concerning 208: “Lobbyists and legislators are very adept at going through mazes.”

*

No doubt, the latest reform is riddled with loopholes. Perhaps the biggest will be the “independent expenditure” committees, which can spend all they want on a candidate as long as their efforts are not “coordinated.”

Consultants predict chaos.

The late Speaker Jesse Unruh became a legend by declaring that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Less known is that in later years--in the 1980s--he often complained that “the mother’s milk has gone sour.”

Unruh ultimately advocated public financing of campaigns, believing it was the best way to control the corruption of private money. It was the best pesticide.