For state lawmakers, it's Christmas all year long.
From drinks and expensive dinners to Lakers and Disneyland tickets to hotel rooms and rounds of golf, state representatives each year rack up an impressive list of freebies provided by industry associations, private companies and other groups.
By law, such groups are allowed to give up to $340 worth of gifts per year to California lawmakers and their staffs. That can include anything from free spa treatments to jewelry.
Take Assemblyman Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, who reported receiving a smorgasbord of free breakfasts, lunches and dinners, along with tickets to sporting events and theme parks. [Assemblymember.Ron.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov OR (323) 838-5858]
According to a review of documents filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office, Calderon received $4,218 in gifts in 2003, the most gifts received by any local lawmaker. [More on Calderon below]
The review by this newspaper of "statements of economic interest' forms looked at gifts received by area lawmakers. Information on gifts received in 2004 is not due to be filed until March 1, 2005.
Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez, D-Norwalk, who accepted $1,415 in gifts during 2003, said his freebies can be explained.
"What you see on my list is mostly business meetings,' he said. "There are times when there's a dinner meeting late in the evening at a restaurant. All of the players on a particular piece of legislation are there and food is ordered.'
Still, Bermudez received a ticket to a Lakers game and food from Southern California Edison and Universal Studios, with the items totaling $362. He also received free admission and valet parking to Disneyland, worth $180.
Receiving gifts does not influence the way he votes, Bermudez said.
"I don't vote a (certain) way because someone gives you something,' he said.
Receptions and dinners paid for by insurance companies, labor unions and various associations were a big part of the gift-giving to local lawmakers. Legislators say the receptions they're invited to serve as convenient forums for meeting people.
"As my role as a state legislator, I give up my time to attend these events so that I can better educate these groups to tell them what the issues are,' said Calderon, who reported attending seven receptions during 2003, including one put on by the California Newspaper Publishers Association Services Inc. and another sponsored by a lumber industry association.
"They want to hear from me,' he said.
Calderon also was treated to free lodging and rounds of golf by Pacific Life Insurance Co. and to a Laker game by Sempra Energy.
State Sen. Bob Margett, R-Brea, also received a Lakers ticket worth $182 courtesy of Universal Studios.
It's all perfectly legal under California's Political Reform Act of 1974. Although lobbyists can spend no more than $10 a month on individual lawmakers or their staffs, the companies, labor unions and associations they represent can give up to $340 a year on gifts, so long as the lawmakers report the gratuities annually to election officials.
There is no limit on gifts given given directly to the lawmakers' spouses and children.
But is it right?
"The question to ask is, after (the legislators) retire, will they be receiving these gifts?' said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. "These gifts are only given because the person is a public official.'
Michael Josephson, founder of the nonprofit Josephson Institute of Ethics in Los Angeles, has conducted ethics seminars for state lawmakers. He said while gift-givers are not buying votes, they are gaining access.
"I don't think these kinds of gifts are equated with bribery. But they're grease,' he said.
Josephson said gifts like free dinners and tickets to basketball games and theme parks create an improper sense of entitlement among public servants.
"In a world where getting an edge is part of our culture, that's not inherently immoral,' he said. "But when you're dealing with public officials about whom there is already cynicism, all that this can do is contribute to that cynicism.'
Margett, who received about $3,500 in gifts the bulk of that amount was for free meals said most of the dinners he received were provided by business organizations.
"The only way you get to see many of them is at a dinner or reception,' he said. "I don't get any calls or offers to go to dinner from labor unions or trial lawyers.'
Although he reported receiving free tickets to Disneyland worth $282, which were provided by the Walt Disney Co., he said the tickets were actually given to his staff.
"I never went to Disneyland,' he said.
The Laker tickets Margett reported receiving were a thank-you from Universal Studios for his work on workers' compensation legislation, he said.
"(Universal Studios) has never paid me for any special favors or to support a bill,' he said.
State legislators are not the only politicians who receive free gifts. The staff and appointees of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also have been the receivers of gifts from many of the same companies and groups that bestowed them on state lawmakers.
Former Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, banned his staff from accepting such gifts. But Schwarzenegger said this month he sees no need for such a policy.
"There's no one selling out in my administration,' he said.
-- Associated Press contributed to the story
source: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206%257E22097%257E2618155,00.html 27dec04
Nepotism is prohibited in California's legislative offices, but not in its campaigns, where family ties can be parlayed into jobs paying tens of thousands of dollars.
State records show Assemblyman Ron Calderon paid $70,000 in campaign funds to his brother, Tom, to serve as a part-time consultant for his recent re-election and his 2002 race in Los Angeles County.
Assemblyman Guy Houston turned to his mother, Dorothy, for help with campaign secretarial and receptionist duties. Donors have picked up a two-year tab totaling $34,000.
Assemblyman Tim Leslie's son, Scott, has received nearly $47,000 in solicited campaign funds the past two years for assisting his father's re-election and helping to organize an annual conference touting urban renewal success stories.
State law requires candidates to disclose who is paid with campaign funds and how much they receive. But voters have no way of knowing the tasks required, hours worked or whether family members received preferential treatment.
Nearly a dozen California legislators hire relatives or contract with businesses owned by family members for campaign services, records show. The number may be higher, since relatives with different last names are not easily detected.
Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento, called campaign nepotism an "age-old tradition" that irritates voters but does not surprise them.
"When you talk to people, they think that politicians operate from different rules," she said. "That's why they don't particularly like politicians."
Federal investigators are examining the business activities of new Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and his political associates, including his son. One question is whether Perata personally profited from arrangements in which political committees tied to Perata paid his son and a close friend for political work. Perata, through his attorney, has denied any wrongdoing.
State law allows legislators to pay wives, children, brothers or other relatives for legitimate campaign-related services. But politicians can't pay themselves a salary or divert their contributors' funds for personal use.
Supporters say there's nothing improper about campaign nepotism because nobody will work harder for a candidate than a trusted, loyal relative. They point to Robert F. Kennedy's role as an adviser and invaluable confidant to his brother, President John F. Kennedy.
But critics counter that paying relatives can raise the appearance of impropriety, sparking questions about whether families are prospering unfairly at donors' expense. State law provides little oversight into such arrangements, and they can easily be exploited, critics say.
Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said he has mixed feelings about the practice.
"I think it's important to talk about it," he said. "I think the voters should know about it, and the politicians should be put on notice that somebody is watching them."
One of the most lucrative examples of campaign nepotism in recent years involved Assemblyman Calderon, D-Covina, and his brother, Tom, a former legislator from the same 58th Assembly District.
Two days after Tom Calderon lost the 2002 Democratic primary for state insurance commissioner, he received $6,500 from his brother's Assembly campaign for political consulting, state records show.
Over the next eight months, Tom received an additional $52,500 from his younger sibling for what amounted to part-time work, since Tom was still a legislator at the time, earning $99,000 in state pay and nearly $28,000 in living expenses.
Ron Calderon hardly was pressed in the race: His Democratic Party held a 2-1 advantage in voter registration, and he raised nearly seven times more than his Republican opponent, Dave Butler, who lost by 27 percentage points.
The state Franchise Tax Board randomly audits spending in one of every four legislative campaigns, partly to ensure that funds were properly disclosed and were used for campaign purposes. Calderon's 2002 race was not one of those examined.
Ron Calderon did not return calls over a three-day period seeking comment about his campaign ties to Tom, now a $99,000-per-year state commission appointee who has supplemented that pay with $11,000 from Ron's coffers over the past two years.
The Calderons apparently are carrying on a family tradition: When Tom was an assemblyman, he turned to Ron, who received $36,000 from his brother for consulting and other campaign services in 2000 and 2001.
Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, said he hasn't hired relatives for his campaigns, and "I probably wouldn't, just because I think some people might view it the wrong way."
"But if someone believes their brother, cousin or whatever is the best person, I think that's fine, it's their prerogative," Nation said. "It's an issue between them and the voters of their district."
Attorney Karen Getman, former chairwoman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said she does not believe that lawmakers routinely hire relatives at big pay for little work.
"The most usual problem is you've got people working around the clock, seven days a week, and barely making minimum wage," she said.
The National Conference of State Legislatures does not keep statistics on which states allow family members to be hired for campaigns, but spokeswoman Jennie Bowser said she believes most, if not all, states permit the practice.
Candidates in federal elections not only can hire their relatives, they can pay themselves for rendering campaign services.
Houston, R-San Ramon, and Leslie, R-Tahoe City, say they have no regrets about hiring a family member and that campaign contributors have gotten more than their money's worth in service.
"She's very competent," Houston said of his mother during the recent campaign. "And she's doing legitimate work, that's the key thing. ... If she weren't, that would be wrong. But she's (at the campaign office) every day, answering phones and doing things."
Leslie noted that his son is being paid through private campaign contributions, not public funds, and that most of his duties involve the Community Renewal Summit, held annually by Leslie and a colleague to spur urban renewal.
"I crack the whip," Leslie said of work-related ties to his 37-year-old son. "I expect a lot of work - and I get it."
Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Fullerton paid his wife $15,500 for raising funds this year for his campaign. The pay is cheap, she works hard, and there's an objective measurement of performance: cash in campaign coffers, he said.
"I've got to pay somebody," Ackerman said. "I can either pay my wife, who I know will work full time - as much as I need her to - or I can hire someone outside and pay two or three times as much. For me, it was an easy decision."
Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco, paid $29,500 in 2002 and $22,500 this year to a business owned by his son, Kevin Mullin, to help run the lawmaker's campaigns. His son, a former legislative staffer, has extensive political experience and works for a variety of corporate clients as well, Mullin said.
"We have a very open relationship, based on the Kennedy model," he said. "The Kennedy family always has a relative running their campaigns, because if times get tough, relatives will stick around, whereas if you have paid consultants, they'll tend to start looking for their next client."
But termed-out Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat who left office last week, said public image is critical in politics - and hiring relatives can raise red flags, even when exemplary work is done.
"If you have a family member with a specific expertise or a specific skill that you thought was indispensable, then maybe it ought to be looked at on a case-by-case basis," he said. "But for myself, I wouldn't do it."
source: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/v-print/story/11676963p-12565966c.html 27dec04
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |