California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon likes to point out that five of the nine cities in his Los Angeles County district have a former city council member in prison, as if that compels his commitment to good government.

However, in modern politics, the legal shenanigans can be almost as corrosive to democracy as the criminal code’s definition of bribery.

Rendon’s regard for ethical conduct is decidedly situational.

The newly minted speaker, like his predecessor before him, has no intention of curtailing one of the most lucrative — and unseemly — fundraising practices in Sacramento. I’m referring to the tradition of our state legislators packing their fundraising calendars in August just as hundreds of bills are reaching their make-or-break moment.

It’s wrong in every way. The aura of “pay to play” is unmistakable. Also, with an almost overwhelming legislative workload, shouldn’t our elected representatives be focusing on the public-policy matters before them instead of engaging in the money chase with both hands outstretched?

The Assembly’s obliviousness to public perception came to the fore when the state Senate voted to lift a ban on fundraising during peak legislative periods — within 30 days of a budget deadline or end of session — that had been passed two years ago when three of its members were under indictment. The Senate’s flimsy excuse? One of its incumbents (Democrat Jim Beall) was being challenged by an Assembly member (Democrat Nora Campos) who was not bound by such rules.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said it would be unfair to ask his senators to “unilaterally disarm” against challengers.

Here’s a good rule of thumb on campaign ethics: Anytime you hear the words “unilaterally disarm,” it means that a candidate, or party, does not have the courage of conviction to stand up to the temptations of campaign dollars. It is possible to “unilaterally disarm” and compete. Gavin Newsom sent the word that he didn’t want big-time contributors to use independent expenditure campaigns to support his 2003 mayoral campaign; they didn’t, and he won. Same with Barack Obama in 2008. Sen. Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton all she can handle — with small contributions, and no “super PAC” support — this year.

This is what passes for principle in Sacramento these days: If you aren’t adhering to ethical practices, then why should I?

Rendon’s visit to The Chronicle editorial board last week gave me a chance to ask him why the Assembly wouldn’t take the high road and impose a fundraising blackout period on itself.

He was, in a word, dismissive.

“If there’s a nexus between politicians being quote-unquote ‘bought off’ by campaign contributions ... it’s something that can happen any time of the year,” Rendon said. “I’m not interested in reforms that are window dressing. I want reforms that are meaningful.”

Let the record show that the Democratic leadership of the California Legislature is not pursuing any meaningful reforms this year. It is working on a nonbinding state ballot initiative deploring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to unlimited contributions by special interests.

It’s always easier for a California politician to rail against Citizens United than to take action on one of the truly insidious practices in Sacramento.

Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who is one of the state’s preeminent scholars on campaign finance, readily acknowledged that a blackout period during peak legislative times would not “revolutionize democracy” or “completely change the culture in Sacramento.”

Yet, as Levinson noted, opponents of any campaign-reform plan are always quick to measure it against an impossible-to-reach standard of perfection. For example, if a contribution limit is $2,500, how could one argue that a donation of $2,499 is really any less influential on a politician’s behavior? Is a donation in January truly any less consequential than one in August on a day of a critical vote?

Common sense says: Of course it is.

“It does get at that particularly problematic moment when you shake someone’s hand, accept a check, and then walk 30 feet to vote on a bill that directly affects them or their employer,” Levinson said. “I think the public views that as particularly problematic. It’s human nature to think people are grateful for these checks.”

Dan Schnur, former chair of the state Fair Political Practices Commission who now serves as director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said: “It’s disappointing that the speaker of the California State Assembly doesn’t understand how horrible it looks for his members to be pocketing checks from fundraisers on their way to the Capitol to vote on legislation.”

It takes a certain suspension of disbelief to think that legislators are not well aware of what they are doing when they schedule their fundraising events in August. Of course they know that a special interest with a bill in the balance — perhaps with many millions of dollars at stake — is going to give, has to give, in anticipation or appreciation of a vote.

Rendon refused to accept such a premise.

“Either you have the moral fortitude to not give in to that ... or you don’t,” he said.

It’s clear that he lacks the moral fortitude to take that option away. Sometimes it seems the people we elect are the most cynical of all about the system they inhabit.

John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Email: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com On Twitter: JohnDiazChron

The Senate giveth, and the Senate taketh away

Two years ago, with three of its members under criminal indictment, the Senate voted 32-1 to ban campaign fundraising within 30 days of a budget approval and 30 days before the end of session. On May 12, the Senate voted 24-8 to lift that rule. Here’s the roll call:

Yes (24)

Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel; Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto; Marty Block, D-San Diego; Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres; Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles; Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield; Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin; Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton; Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley; Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina; Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys; Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo; Ben Hueso, D-Logan Heights; Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara; Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens; Mark Leno, D-San Francisco; Connie Leyva, D-Chino; Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia; Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles; Bill Monning, D-Carmel; John Morlach, R-Costa Mesa; Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills; Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont; Lois Wolk, D-Davis

No (8)

Joel Anderson, R-Alpine; Jim Beall, D-San Jose; Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar; Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga; Janet Nguyen, R-Garden Grove; Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber; Jeff Stone, R-Temecula; Andy Vidak, R-Hanford

Not voting (8)

Benjamin Allen, D-Santa Monica; Steve Glazer, D-Orinda; Isadore Hall III, D-Compton; Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge; Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg; Richard Pan, D-Sacramento; Richard Roth, D-Riverside; Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster