Ed Roski Jr.: A California case study in soft corruption

According to the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 30, “Ed Roski Jr., the L.A. County billionaire who got state legislators to exempt his proposed NFL stadium from environmental laws, has showered the lawmakers with tens of thousands of dollars in campaign cash… The money is part of $505,000 that Roski put into California political campaigns during the second half of 2009, including $300,000 toward a proposed ballot measure that would change term limits.”

That's called payback.

This legal bribe is being offered as California politicians are once again raising cash for a referendum effort to overturn or weaken term limits in California. In their last financial disclosure report, the petition effort reports raising about $485,000, a full $300,000 of it from Roski. The rest is from other special interests with pending business before the legislature including the LA County Federation of Labor, LA Jobs PAC, O'Melveny & Myers trial lawyers PAC, a police union and the BNSF Railway Co.

This will be the third time Californians will be asked to vote on term limits since the voters originally passed them back in 1990. In both 2002 and 2008, the voters rebuffed the politicians.

Money isn't enough by itself. In both of those previous efforts, the anti-term limits forces raised and spend some 10 times as much much as the term limits supporters.

So, they've dusted off and tweaked a gimmick in order to trick the people into voting for it. In California, the lower house is limited to six years and the upper house, eight. That is, you could serve in one and then the other for a total of 14 years total. The new proposal to weaken term limits will increase the number of years to 12 in each house, but limit politicians to a total of 12 overall. They are going to claim that their proposal actually strengthens the term limits law, as it reduces total service to 12 years from 14. You have to admit: it may be arrogant and deceptive, but it is clever.

Greased with enough cash and enough obfuscation, the politicians and lobbies think the third time might be the charm. They've already squandered tens of millions of dollars in their quest to retain power but their purse keeps growing because they have the favors to grant. In a state with a 12%-plus unemployment rate, the jobs they're fighting the hardest to keep are their own.

Another term limit foe indicted in Palm Beach

Now we know why holding on to her county commission seat was so important. It was announced today that Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty has been indicted and will plead guilty of accepting gifts to steer business to special interests -- including her husband's bond underwriting firm.

She told the Palm Beach Post she expects to serve "a significant period of incarceration."

In doing so, she will follow her former colleagues on the commission Warren Newell and Tony Masilotti, both of whom got 5-year federal prison terms last year.

Commissioners McCarty and Newell were the most active opponents of the successful 2002 referendum to limit the terms of Palm Beach County Commissioners to eight years in office starting in 2010. I was the campaign manager for the effort.

Newell spoke against the measure at public meetings and called a referendum organizer at home -- my father, George -- and pleaded that the campaign be halted.

McCarty went further. As chair of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County, she was the key reason the GOP did not endorse the referendum in spite of overwhelming support from the party's rank and file. McCarty actually instructed all the Republican Clubs around the county not to permit me to speak at their meetings and collect signed petitions. To their credit, most did anyway.

Naturally, the suspected corruption of the commissioners was an important impetus for the term limits effort. I recall that many of the petitioners who spent their evenings and weekends in parking lots across the county with clipboards were motivated by McCarty specifically. As I note here, one of the benefits of term limits is that they contribute to cleaner and more transparent government.

Sometimes the good guys win and justice is done. It is this experience that attracts so many to the term limits movement.

Blagojevich's third term

Up until last week, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) was hinting he was going to run for a third term in the governor's office, but now he's more likely to get a term in prison.

That's one kind of term limit. But the more traditional term limitations also contribute to cleaner and more transparent government in several ways.

First, regular rotation in office necessarily widens the circle of those with an intimate knowledge of the office. With an entrenched incumbency, either in the executive or legislative branches, this knowledge as well as institutional memory is more closely held. Rotation disperses it and makes it easier for outsiders to peer in and blow the whistle when necessary.

Second, the hubris that leads to corruption is a function of tenure. In most cases corrupt politicians were not originally elected, perhaps decades ago, with the hubris and sense of entitlement that leads to their ultimate self destruction. Maybe they were even led to run for office for public spirited reasons. Ah, but that was long ago...

Ronald Reagan put it better when he'd say that candidates look at Washington and see a cesspool, but after a while in office they start seeing a hot tub.

Third, shortened tenure reduces the opportunity for corruption. Even a politician with a flawed character requires an opportunity for the corruption to manifest itself. Tenure offers the knowledge and opportunity necessary. Mixed with the arrogance of office, born partly of tenure, many politicians give in to temptation.

Gov. Blagojevich was caught; many are not. It behooves us build our public institutions in ways that retard such behaviors across the board. After all, if the FBI had not been listening to his phone calls, the governor could potentially have been seated for a third term, more corrupt and more powerful than ever.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

In spite of the felony conviction and electoral defeat of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Republican of longest tenure ever in the U.S. Senate, the 40-year veteran is nonetheless eligible for a $122,000 annual pension, complete with cost-of-living adjustments.

Remember Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), the 35-year House veteran and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee who was convicted in the House Post Office scandal in 1994? He still takes home $126,000 a year.

Who knows what lurks in the hearts of evil men? But when you hear these cases you have to suspect that tenure and lack of competitive elections play a role in the downfall of such once-respected national leaders. Certainly they were not sent to the Senate so many decades ago with the arrogance, sense of entitlement and opportunity that led to their ultimate self-destruction.

After the inconveniences following their respective convictions, both gentlemen are able to ponder such questions for the rest of their lives in leisure -- on our dime.