If a single public perception set up the recall of former Gov.
Gray Davis last fall, it was the widespread conviction that during
his almost five years in office, public policy was for sale.
”
Pay-to-play,
”
his Republican foes called the phenomenon every chance they got.
Even some former Davis aides concede today that campaign donations
had a lot to do with public policy during the Davis years.
If a single public perception set up the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis last fall, it was the widespread conviction that during his almost five years in office, public policy was for sale.
“Pay-to-play,” his Republican foes called the phenomenon every chance they got. Even some former Davis aides concede today that campaign donations had a lot to do with public policy during the Davis years.
Now it’s beginning to look like pay-to-play is back in Sacramento, at least as egregiously as ever.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger piously claims he never accepts campaign money from companies or special interests with business before the state. But he also insisted when he declared for office in August 2003 that he would never have to accept any campaign donations. Since then, he and his various committees have accepted more than $20 million in political contributions – and he seeks $9 million more before the November election.
Less than 10 months after he assumed office, his boast of never taking money from people, companies or interests which might be out to influence him has become no more credible than the assertion that he would never need to accept donations at all.
Take brothers Joe and Gavin Maloof, owners of the Sacramento Kings basketball team, a Las Vegas casino and other interests. The Maloofs hosted a $10,000-per-plate dinner for Schwarzenegger at Gavin Maloof’s Sacramento spread last winter. They also staged a $25,000-per-ticket soiree for the governor in their private suite at Arco Arena for a game between the Kings and the San Antonio Spurs. Even before the second event, Joe Maloof told the Albuquerque Journal that “We’ve already raised $1 million (for Schwarzenegger). We could get to $1.5 million.”
As a result, things looked suspect at the least when the governor announced an agreement (since reduced and delayed) giving the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians the right to operate 5,000 slot machines in a massive San Francisco Bay area casino that would be partially managed by the Maloofs.
Of course, Schwarzenegger, like Davis before him, insists he’s never been influenced by anyone who donates to him and his campaigns.
Then there’s the matter of discount drugs. In the waning days of this year’s legislative session, Schwarzenegger put out word he would veto bills setting up methods for Californians to buy drugs from Canadian pharmacies at prices far lower than those prevailing in the United States. He explained that any such new law would conflict with federal law and thus be invalid.
Of course, any such state law would also put increased pressure on the Bush administration to permit purchases of Canadian drugs.
Was Schwarzenegger influenced by campaign donations? Only he knows for sure, but drug companies including Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb have contributed more than $337,000 to his various funds. They were also among the leading contributors of more than $350,000 raised to defray Schwarzenegger expenses during the Republican National Convention in New York.
Insurance companies have given the governor more than $1 million. It’s valid, therefore, to wonder about Schwarzenegger’s appointment of Bill Gausewitz as director of his Office of Administrative Law, which gives final approval or disapproval to all regulations proposed by state agencies implementing new laws of all kinds.
Gausewitz was assistant vice president for state affairs for the American Insurance Association before getting the Schwarzenegger nod. Can he rule impartially on proposed insurance industry regulations? Consumer advocates wonder whether his appointment was a gift to an industry that generously supports Schwarzenegger and his causes.
These are just a few very visible examples of Schwarzenegger taking money from people or interests with business before him. As with Davis, to some critics it looks like he and his policies are for sale.
Then there’s embattled Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. It turns out he handed sweetheart, no-bid contracts to a political consultant who worked on his last campaign and to the law firm of his campaign treasurer. A spokesman told reporters the contractors were selected for their expertise and experience. Uh-huh.
Political reality in the wake of the questionable ethics of the Davis administration should have dictated that everyone in state office be purer than Caesar’s wife, especially the man who ousted Davis and the official who oversaw that election.
That has not been the case, as there is at least as much evidence that payola moves public policy today as there ever was under Davis.
