Update: Brown on Friday said he would not investigate, saying the governors' veto power "has long been recognized as a powerful weapon for shaping policy."
"Compromise in the rough-and-and tumble legislative process is not achieved by doilies and tea," he added.

Gov. Schwarzenegger made it pretty explicit today, threatening to "veto a lot of their legislation," if lawmakers don't strike a deal on major water legislation.

It sounds an awful lot like quid pro quo, which has some lawmakers accusing the governor of breaking the law.

Assembly Member Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, this week called the governor's repeated threats "an unacceptable use of politcal extortion tactics" and asked Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate. In a letter, Torrico cited this section of the state Constitution:

A person who seeks to influence the vote or action of a member of
the Legislature in the member's legislative capacity by bribery, promise
of reward, intimidation, or other dishonest means, or a member of the
Legislature so influenced, is guilty of a felony. Cal. Const. art. IX, § 15

But in a similar case a year ago, the Legislative Counsel of California sided with the governor. The counsel, which provides legal opinions to lawmakers, was responding to an inquiry from Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater.

He wanted to know if the governor broke any laws when he threatened in September 2008 to veto all the bills on his desk if lawmakers voted to ovverride his planned veto of a budget plan lawmakers sent to him. At the time, the governor was upset that the budget did not meet all of his demands, including a strong rainy day fund. The issue was resolved and lawmakers never override his veto, but the legal question lived on.

In November, Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine issued an opinon saying that the governor was in the clear because "we conclude that the term 'bribe' does not apply to actions between the executive and legislative branches relating to enactment of bills where no personal benefit is involved."

Denham's office was not satisfied with the finding and in April sought a review from Attorney General Brown, citing "serious questions" about the "reasoning the Legislative Counsel used."

More than five months later, Brown's office has yet to respond. Calls to the office about the matter have not been returned.