Reforms Put Little Dent in Lobbyists’ Access : Government: A recent ‘sponsored’ trip to Washington illustrates how special interests and legislators are able to circumvent ethics laws.

SACRAMENTO — A select group of lobbyists paid a $2,000 “sponsorship fee” to accompany legislators to Washington last month, and in return were given rare access, not only to state elected officials who made the trip but also to ranking members of the Clinton Administration.

The presence of lobbyists and other special interest representatives proved an embarrassment when they accompanied lawmakers to meetings in the offices of top presidential appointees, who were expecting only California legislators.

Two Cabinet-level officials were surprised enough that their staffs complained to the White House, which had arranged the meetings.

But those who paid their fees as invited “sponsors” of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s annual trip to the nation’s capital say they got good value for their money.

For example, one representative of an automobile repair association pushing to keep its members’ share of the state’s smog check business was able to argue his case to the federal official who has the final say--Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner.

The Washington lobbying coup illustrates that even after tough limits were placed on gifts and subsidized travel for public officials, loopholes exist in laws intended to stop the buying and selling of access.

Just three years ago, California voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment that proponents promised would “free state government from the influence of special interest dollars.”

Under that amendment and an accompanying ethics law, no lawmaker can accept more than $250 in gifts from a single source each year. And under the 1974 Political Reform Act, lobbyists have been barred from spending more than $10 a month on any legislator and from directing gifts made by their employers.

But the statutes place no limits on the amount of money that lobbyists, corporations, unions and trade groups can contribute to a political campaign. And those contributions can be used for any activity with a “political, legislative or governmental purpose.”

The sponsors of the Washington trip paid their money to the Assembly Democrats’ Victory Fund, a campaign committee controlled by the Assembly Speaker. The money--as much as $100,000 and possibly more--was used to provide such amenities as vans to shuttle participants from meeting to meeting and a gala dinner at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, featuring an orchestra and the popular satirical singing group, the Capitol Steps.

“It’s business as usual,” said Robert M. Stern, one of the drafters of the voter-approved Political Reform Act.

“The basic problem is you’re soliciting money from people doing business before you,” said Stern, co-director of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, a bipartisan, nonprofit reform group. “That’s what the Political Reform Act was intended to eliminate or reduce.”

As it happened, at least two top Clinton Administration officials--the EPA’s Browner and Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt--protested to the White House because lobbyists and others turned up at meetings intended for lawmakers only, say sources familiar with the trip.

Several legislators said they too were surprised by the turnout of lobbyists, who outnumbered lawmakers 3 to 1 at some functions. The trip included visits with members of California’s congressional delegation.

One California legislator who asked not to be identified for fear of offending Brown complained that at some sessions with Clinton Cabinet members, sponsors “kept popping up and asking questions, and that was time that the members (of the Legislature) thought they would have.”

Brown declined to respond to questions about the trip, but his aides denied that he was selling access. They argued that it was better to charge a sponsorship fee for an important meeting in Washington than to spend scarce state revenue. “Californians didn’t pay for the trip out of their tax dollars,” said Darolyn Davis, the Speaker’s press secretary.

Davis said that instead of seeing sponsorship fees as a price for access, the money paid by lobbyists and others should be viewed as covering the cost of an educational experience. “It’s like going to a seminar,” she said.

Neither Davis nor the staff of Assembly Democratic Caucus chairman, Jim Costa of Hanford, responded to requests for a list of sponsors and an accounting of how the money was spent. It was Costa who signed the invitation letter sent to selected lobbyists and others, and an aide to Costa arranged details of the trip.

There may never be a detailed accounting if last year’s trip, financed in the same manner, is any indication. Brown must list the sponsors in a campaign committee report due July 31. But under California disclosure laws, he need not distinguish between sponsors and other contributors, nor is he required to separate trip expenses from other spending.

Most of the 53 lawmakers who made the trip paid for their hotel rooms and air fares through their campaign committees. Sponsorship fees paid to Brown’s committee picked up the rest.

Those who paid the fees say the trip was worth the expense.

David W. Helmsin, a lobbyist for California’s nursing home industry, said he was pleased to be able to meet with Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.

“My chances of seeing Donna Shalala were better than calling her and making an appointment with her, so it was well worth the money,” he said.

Not only did Helmsin’s employer, the California Assn. of Health Facilities, pay the $2,000 sponsorship fee, but it also picked up the cost of a reception for lawmakers at the National Press Club.

But lobbyists for public interest and environmental groups, who were not invited on the trip and generally do not make campaign contributions, complain that those who pay gain an advantage that is useful when lawmakers return to Sacramento.

“The reason lobbyists go on those trips is to spend time with legislators, building relationships,” said Consumers Union West Coast Director Judith Bell. “Those relationships help them to get meetings in crucial, crunch times. They’re not going back to see the cherry blossoms, I’ll tell you that.”

The annual Washington trip was especially important this year because it was lawmakers’ first chance to meet with Clinton Administration officials.

But when Browner, the new EPA administrator, walked into a meeting room at the agency’s headquarters one afternoon, she expressed surprise to find lobbyists among the lawmakers, said several lobbyists and legislators in attendance. Of the 20 or so people, about half were lawmakers and half industry representatives who had paid the $2,000 sponsorship fee, said Dennis DeCota, executive director of the California Service Station & Automotive Assn.

DeCota’s organization represents about 3,000 garages and service stations, which are battling with state and federal officials to keep their sizable share of the state’s smog check program. The EPA is pressing California to shift the automobile exhaust testing to a new network of centralized centers--taking the $270-million-a-year business away from the shops that DeCota represents.

DeCota argues that the change will not improve air quality, and he was able to make his case directly to Browner, who has final approval over changes in California’s smog-reduction program.

Also at the meeting was Richard Douglas, a senior vice president of Sun-Diamond Growers, who talked to Browner about a continuing controversy over the use of suspected cancer-causing pesticides on raisins and other processed foods. “I told her we wanted to talk with her and meet with her, that we would be coming back to Washington in a few weeks,” Douglas said.

Browner’s staff complained to the White House official who arranged the meeting and who relayed the message to the Speaker.

The staff of Interior Secretary Babbitt registered a similar complaint about a meeting held at the Department of Interior earlier that afternoon.

Other sponsors speak of the benefits of extended contact with California legislators.

The Cooperative of American Physicians paid the $2,000 sponsor fee and picked up the $1,500 tab for a buffet breakfast.

The nonprofit group, established under a 1975 statute, provides malpractice coverage to about 4,000 California doctors.

“We could be changed by a stroke of a pen,” said Carl Blomquist, chief executive officer. The corporation helps support the trip, he said, so that “if there’s ever an attempt to legislate us out of existence, they will know who we are.”

The Washington trip is not an isolated instance of tapping special interests for money. The Speaker reached out to the business community for financial support of his February economic summit. And Brown and state Senate leader David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) are the honorary co-chairmen of a nonprofit committee raising $1.3 million for the National Conference of State Legislatures meeting scheduled for San Diego in July.

In return for contributions, sponsors are given tickets to a variety of ceremonial functions, from VIP receptions to opening and closing ceremonies, where they can mix with Democratic and Republican leaders from both houses of the Legislature.

So far, four companies--Arco, Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Bank of America and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.--have pledged $100,000 or more to the event.