Ventura County Star
SACRAMENTO, CA — Standing beneath the burgundy awning of Sacramento’s historic and exclusive Sutter Club just before lunch on Wednesday, political muckraker Doug Heller prepared, Geraldo-style, to crash a party.
Trailed by four video cameras, he marched into the 117-year-old club and announced at the front desk that, even though he had no intention of paying any money, he was there to attend a $1,000-a-plate luncheon fundraiser for Sacramento Assemblyman Roger Niello.
“You have to leave,” he was told. “Members only.”
Fact is, however, dozens of nonmembers visited the club Wednesday. It was the site of three separate political fundraisers — two at lunch, one at dinner — and any lobbyist or other contributor with a check for $500, $1,000 or $3,000 would be welcomed.
All across town, it’s Christmas in August for Sacramento restaurants, hotels, social clubs and caterers. The end of the legislative session is approaching, and lawmakers are literally working overtime to raise campaign money — at breakfast before work, during their lunch break, or over dinner after the day’s final committee meeting has been gaveled to a close.
Wednesday may have set an unofficial record: 22 fundraisers in a single day. One lobbyist, checking his appointment book, advised that the record could fall next week.
An annual ‘Dash for Cash’
Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, calls it the annual “Dash for Cash,” and says it needs to stop.
“This is the heart of the legislative session,” he said. “The fate of 1,500 bills will be decided in the next two weeks, so this is the time of maximum leverage for the politicians. They know the lobbyists will do whatever it takes to get in good. It is totally unethical to do fundraising while legislating.”
To call attention to all the money-changing, Heller’s group staged a guerilla-style protest Wednesday, dispatching unwelcome guests to each of the 22 events. It was a bipartisan day for passing the hat: 13 Democrats and 9 Republicans held events.
Volunteers sought free admission, and the one who successfully crashed the most events would win dinner and pair of tickets to a Sacramento Kings basketball game. Double points were awarded if a volunteer could get the elected official to pose for a picture.
In addition, camera crews for the group’s online video site, www.Channel89.org, filmed and attempted to interview lobbyists as they came and went.
The foundation is promoting Proposition 89 on the Nov. 7 ballot, an initiative sponsored by the California Nurses Association that would create a system of voluntary public financing for campaigns for state offices. Under its terms, candidates who agreed to foreswear private contributions could qualify for public financing of their campaigns by first raising a threshold number of $5 contributions to prove their earnestness.
The money to finance campaigns would be generated by an increase in the income tax levied on banks and corporations.
More time for state business
Proponents argue that candidates and elected officials, if freed from the constant demands of fundraising, would be able to devote their time to meeting with constituents and taking care of public business.
“If Proposition 89 passes, we won’t have the Dash for Cash in August,” Heller said. “Instead, we’ll have a race for the best ideas.”
Not all of the subjects of the protests disagree.
Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said there were a couple of people with video cameras outside her $1,000 breakfast fundraiser Wednesday morning, but she was unaware of what the commotion was about.
Wolk supports Proposition 89 and said she hopes the foundation “does help with 89. I’d like to see the system change, but until it does I intend to raise money.”
Two Ventura County lawmakers missed the protest by a day: Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, R-Moorpark, and Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, each held breakfast fundraisers Tuesday morning. Nava’s was a $1,000 affair; Strickland charged $1,500.
System demands it, Nava says
Nava, a supporter of Proposition 89, said the current system demands that he raise money.
“I’ve got to be competitive, and I’ve got to run for re-election,” he said.
Strickland said the timing of her fundraiser had no effect on whether lobbyists in Sacramento chose to attend. “In my experience, people who support me do so regardless of what time of year it is. People support me because of my ideas — lower taxes, less regulation, creating jobs. Those are my positions year-round.”
Strickland said she is “absolutely opposed” to public financing of political campaigns.
“A lot of people see it as a way to ease all these ills,” she said. “But I feel like you’d end up with a Legislature totally dominated by millionaires. They will not be responsive to the needs of Californians.”
Heller responded that Proposition 89 includes a provision that allows publicly financed candidates to receive extra money if their opponent uses his or her own wealth to finance a campaign that exceeds the spending limit for so-called “clean money” candidates.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights has a reputation for in-your-face politics. It has vigorously protested special-interest fundraising by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.
Among its critics is Republican political consultant Mark Bogetich, who accuses the group of hypocrisy because it does not disclose the source of its own financing.
“They have a large fundraising dinner every year, and I’ve never seen their guest list,” he said. “Historically, they have fronted for trial lawyers.”
If Proposition 89 were to pass, Bogetich said, the effect would be to restrict the political influence of the business community. “Every trial lawyer could still contribute to FTCR and FTCR’s political committees. That’s a pretty good outcome for them.”
Heller said his group, like all nonprofits, has no obligation to publicly disclose its benefactors.
“Unlike the people who are raising money here in Sacramento today,” he said, “nobody’s ever given me a vote. We’re not in the Legislature. We don’t make public policy.”
————
Contact the author at: [email protected]
