Protection Money
Dems pay $20,000 a head for cut-to-order congressional districts.

By Sheri Annis, a Los Angeles-based political and media consultant
September 6, 2001 11:10 a.m.

n old-fashioned shakedown has just taken place in California politics.

It began when a Democratic insider named Michael Berman, the brother of L.A. congressman Howard Berman, got a contract worth nearly $1 million to draw a new map for the Golden State's 53 congressional districts.

The Orange County Register mentioned — in two heavily buried paragraphs — that the state's Democratic members of Congress were joining forces in an "incumbent-protection plan," as Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez put it. The price of admission: $20,000 per lawmaker.

Let's read further in today's issue of Highlights for Grownups. Can you find the hidden bribe? "Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat," Sanchez said. "I spend $2 million every election. If my colleagues are smart, they'll pay their $20,000, and Michael will draw the district they can win in. Those who have refused to pay? God help them." That wasn't hard, was it?

But — surprise — good government types aren't expressing outrage. And the media, typically hypersensitive to any hint of financial corruption, are greeting the news with a yawn. When David Broder picked up the Sanchez quote in the Washington Post, he relegated it to the last paragraph of his piece.

Most politicians like to get on their soapbox and rail about the bad guys engaging in bribery or dirty politics. Kind of hard to do though, isn't it, when you're the ones making the payoffs?

In the 2000 race, Al Gore harangued the Republicans about campaign finance reform while experiencing a bout of Zen-like amnesia over his own fundraising improprieties. So how does that square with the lack of outrage from all the Dems who have been touting ethics in politics? Where are the media on this one? Why not denounce the practice in editorials — or interview the 30 out of 32 congressional Democrats who forked over the $20,000 to Berman? Surely they could provide some justification for this legalized bribery. We might have to eat into some Condit coverage, but my guess is the republic can survive.

Consider the scenario in reverse. It's some faraway decade, and Republicans control the California governorship and the delegation to Capitol Hill. Rep. Christopher Cox announces that he's paying off the GOP-anointed redistricting czar — and brother of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — to keep his seat safe from a Democratic takeover. Other Republicans follow suit.

Everyone involved would be tarred, feathered, and raked over the coals. Their improper behavior would be splattered over front pages and debated on cable talk shows. Dan Rather would introduce the story in somber tones. Liberal pundits would — rightly — condemn it as corruption.

Of course, part of our democracy has always been for sale. Unions buy off politicians for a piece of the action; corporations with first-rate lobbyists win government subsidies. But a $20,000 payment to ensure that one's district remains intact smells, tastes, and feels like a quid pro quo. Even Loretta Sanchez admits that.

In California at least, when it comes to cleaning up government, the Democrats' credibility is evaporating like an ocean mist over Malibu.