Sacramento Legislators Focus on Advancing Careers, and Not Much Else

It has been almost three years since I left the California Assembly to return to the business world. Fortunately for me, and for my mental health, I’ve kept away from the inner workings of that house.

I love public affairs. And I love our system of government here in California. But political bartering and influence peddling, as strong as that may sound, are rampant in Sacramento. During my three terms I had the opportunity to come all too close to witnessing what any common-sense observer would call a blatant selling of influence. Bills passed through the Legislature because of contributions made to key legislators voting on the issues. Committee memberships, chairmanships and the authorship of bills were assigned based on political compensation of one form or another.

Some say that this is just part of the system. I would say that it’s at best a terrible side effect, and at worst a form of blatant corruption.

And, from where I sit, it appears to me that nothing has changed.

Take, for example, this brouhaha over the so-called “Gang of Five�--the five young Democratic assemblymen who are feuding with Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. As far as I can tell, there are no real ideological differences between Brown and the Five. It’s just a bunch of ambitious politicians fighting with other ambitious politicians.

The real problem, and the real story in Sacramento, goes much deeper than the squabbling over who should be the next treasurer or who should get which committee chairmanship. The basic problem is that there are not enough representatives doing the job that they were elected to do. This problem stems from the fact that only a handful of incumbent legislators come from competitive districts--that is, districts in which they must legitimately compete every term for reelection.

In business, competition keeps our company sharp. What’s more important, competition is ultimately the best friend of the consumer.

And the same thing is true in politics. The constant specter of a tough and credible challenger, while not necessarily comfortable to politicians, is the best way to get good representation.

Some lawmakers say that freedom from competitive elections allows them the latitude to express their opinions without any worry about voter reprisal, but, taken to its logical extreme, this is an argument for a constitutional monarchy.

The vast majority of legislators already represent one-party districts. In most cases incumbents can easily get reelected without having to work their districts or listen to their constituents.

Freed of the problems of having to worry about their districts, they spend their time advancing their political careers. In this case the lack of competition has given them the ability to do little more than play checkers with Willie Brown.

It all goes back to the gerrymandered reapportionment plans that were passed by the Legislature in 1982. Those plans, which drew the legislative and congressional districts, were designed to guarantee that all incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, retained their seats in both houses of the Legislature and in the congressional delegation.

In that regard the reapportionments have been successful. For example, in 1986, among 165 congressional and legislative races, no incumbent was defeated.

I strongly opposed the “incumbent protection plan,� and I sponsored an initiative to give Californians fair and competitive districts. As you may recall, the state Supreme Court took it off the ballot, so you never had an opportunity to vote on it.

At the time, our main criticism of the Legislature’s plan was that lack of competitive districts would result in the election of many unresponsive legislators. This criticism was ridiculed, but time has proved that our observations were correct.

True, population increases have changed the composition in a handful of districts and have turned a few more districts into competitive districts. Nevertheless, the majority of seats in the California Assembly remain non-competitive districts.

And that’s the way it looks. Nothing has changed. And nothing will change until the voters of California bring in a new majority committed to fair and competitive reapportionment plans.