NEWS ANALYSIS : Conviction Calls Capitol Practices Into Doubt : Lobbying: It is uncertain whether decision will change the play-for-pay system in Sacramento. But it may make players more cautious.

SACRAMENTO — Former state Sen. Paul Carpenter’s conviction Monday on federal corruption charges strikes at the heart of the way business is done at the state Capitol.

Carpenter was not accused of selling his vote. Instead, he was charged with auctioning “access”--his time, energy and attention--to those who contributed to his campaign. In his case, federal prosecutors argued that politicians need not be caught trading their votes for money in order to be guilty of extortion.

“These public officials have a responsibility to represent everybody, not just those people that contribute to them,” Assistant U.S. Atty. John P. Panneton said in an interview. “An important part of the process is the ability to discuss issues with your representative. When that is denied, the poor and disenfranchised get no voice.”

Legislators have long excused the huge donations they receive from special interest groups by contending that all they give in exchange for the money is access.

In fact, according to lawmakers and lobbyists alike, it is extremely difficult to influence a vote without first getting the ear of the legislator who casts it.

“There is no difference between selling your vote and selling access,” said Harry Snyder, director of Consumers Union’s California office. “Big-money lobbyists have access not because of the brilliance of their arguments or the size of their bellies but because they’re making contributions that elected officials feel they cannot do without.”

The ability to meet directly with legislators is crucial in winning passage of legislation, said one lobbyist who asked not to be identified. “You have to be able to look eyeball to eyeball with some of them,” the lobbyist said. “If you can’t get in to see them, then you’re sunk.”

From all accounts, Carpenter’s style was not as direct as that of his one-time colleague, former Sen. Joseph Montoya, a Whittier Democrat convicted earlier this year of extortion and racketeering and now serving time in federal prison.

Prosecutors portrayed Carpenter as an expert at the wink and the nod, the body language and the verbal hints that together send a simple message all lobbyists quickly learn to read: If you want to play, you’ve got to pay.

Carpenter’s indirect manner may be more typical of the way legislators operate. Until his trial began, many lawmakers said openly that lobbyists who arranged campaign contributions would have an easier time getting in to see them. Carpenter was so sure what he did was legal that he admitted it on the witness stand.

“People who contribute frequently get a different level of access,” Carpenter told the jury. “That’s the real world. To deny it or pretend it doesn’t exist is fallacious.”

Carpenter was not alone in holding this view.

Sen. John Seymour, a Republican from Anaheim, said he tries to make time for everyone who wants to speak to him. But he said it is only human nature to respond more quickly to one’s supporters.

“I walk into the office and I’ve got 15 telephone calls to return,” said Seymour, who has no connection to the investigation. “I shuffle through the messages and prioritize them. The natural thing for me to do is to first call people I have a relationship with.”

Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach), who has a reputation for integrity, said the conventional wisdom in the Capitol is that it is legal, if not entirely ethical, to give access to your contributors while excluding those who don’t contribute.

“I don’t think most legislators think it’s a crime unless they trade their vote for a contribution,” she said.

The prosecutors, however, saw it differently. Taking a novel approach, Panneton said that federal extortion laws and California bribery laws both make it illegal for a public official to decide whom to see on the basis of campaign contributions.

During the trial, prosecutors charged that the senator refused to discuss legislation with five lobbyists and a businessman who had not donated to his campaign. At the same time, they charged, Carpenter opened his door to an undercover FBI agent who had given him a $20,000 campaign contribution.

“Providing preferential treatment in the form of giving citizens an opportunity to be heard on legislative matters is a violation of the law,” said Panneton, the lead prosecutor in the case.

Now that a jury has proved Panneton correct, it remains to be seen if the verdict will change anything in the Capitol.

Assemblyman Robert Frazee (R-Carlsbad) said he has always been happy to listen to anyone--friend or foe. But he said he believed a law or a legal precedent banning the selling of access would be difficult to enforce.

“You’d have to have a time-clock in your office and have people punch in and out and keep a record of it,” he said. “I don’t know how you do that. You can’t write a law that legislates common sense.”

Several legislators and lobbyists said the conviction probably will prompt lawmakers to be more careful about what they say, if not what they do.

“The system didn’t change when Montoya went to prison,” said a lobbyist. “People just got smarter.”