Helen Sommers: An Oral History

pg. 298 The Press
term-limit and salary-rollback campaigns now under
way suggest, the public is increasingly cynical.
“Morale is low,” said Rep. Greg Fisher, D-Des
Moines. “You’ve got a Legislature where sticking
your neck out isn’t always rewarded, a cynical
press and hundreds of special-interest groups. It
can bleed your courage.”
The effect of campaign spending can’t be overstated.
In 1990, legislative candidates spent $11.5
million, and several of the winners spent more than
$200,000. Twenty percent of that money came from
fewer than 10 business or labor contributors.
Those groups, whether it be Boeing or the state
employees union, are normally more interested in
protecting their turf than in sweeping reforms.
“The elections are so expensive that that’s the
fact you tend to remember when you get down here,”
said a top Democratic staffer. “You tend to forget
why you wanted to come here in the first place.”
As legislative staffs have grown, so has the
political threat. The Republican and Democratic
caucuses each employ large staffs whose unofficial
job descriptions include compiling voting records
and policy positions that might be used later in
campaigns.
Knowing that, many legislators, especially those
with ideas of seeking a higher office, justifiably cringe
at the prospect of any vote that could be twisted
into fodder for a 30-second radio commercial. A
few weeks ago, even as negotiations continued on a
growth bill, the state Democratic Party was mailing
fliers attacking Puget Sound Republican senators
for killing the measure.
All of which helps explain why Gaspard and
others voted for the property-tax bill, which ultimately
died. It explains why Rep. Jennifer Belcher,
D-Olympia, voted two weeks ago for a bill that
appeared to shift lottery revenue to schools, but
really made no change. The measure was a fraud,
Belcher said, but she didn’t have the energy to explain
a vote against it.
Fear has so surpassed leadership as Olympia’s
driving force, says a business lobbyist specializing
in environmental issues, that it even explains the
session’s greatest successes - the measures to pre-
vent oil spills, clean up the air and manage growth.
“The only reason those passed,” he said, “is
that people were afraid of voting against environmental
bills.
“Everybody’s afraid that if they do anything
wrong, the voters are going to kick them out of
office,” the lobbyist says. “The irony is that voters
are ready to kick them out because they don’t do
anything.”
PEOPLE WE LOOK TO FOR
LEADERSHIP
GOV. BOOTH GARDNER
Democrats, especially, credit Gardner for having
good ideas, or at least big ones. The criticism
is that he rarely follows through on the ideas with
a lasting effort. His unsuccessful 1989 bid for tax
reform is an example. Gardner’s style of consensus
and compromise is more practical than inspiring.
HOUSE SPEAKER JOE KING
King, who loves the kind of back-room wheeling
and dealing Gardner eschews, has shaped the House
Democratic caucus into a powerful and progressive
force. But the speaker had a rough session. His own
caucus balked at following him on issues such as
abortion rights, he got into a feud with the Boeing
Co. and with an eye toward higher office, he seems
to have grown more cautious.
SENATE LEADER JEANNETTE HAYNER
The Republican majority leader starts with
much different goals: Her vision of government is to
contain it. Given that, and her slim 25-24 majority
in the Senate, Hayner is widely hailed for expertly
controlling her caucus. If you want to go nowhere,
say her critics, Hayner is the perfect leader. She
may have single-handedly broken the Legislature’s
logjam on growth controls, however.
SEN. DAN MCDONALD
As chairman of the Senate Ways and Means
Committee, McDonald has as much control over
the state’s $15.7 billion budget as anybody besides