Some Ads in Bradley Campaign Miss Mark : Deukmejian Is Backed Heavily by Insurance and Waste Firms but Other Charges Don’t Stand Up

The financial backing that Gov. George Deukmejian’s campaign has drawn from virtually all sectors of California’s business community includes heavy support from waste disposal and insurance companies, just as Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley has charged in television commercials, a Times study of campaign contributions has found.

But other parts of Bradley’s gubernatorial campaign advertising do not stand up under scrutiny, the Times study found.

For example, in his recent radio commercials, Bradley charged that Deukmejian opposed legislation to improve handling of consumer complaints about insurance companies, implying that the governor acted because he received $709,000 in campaign contributions from the industry in the last five years.

Actually, the governor signed a bill to speed action on complaints on Oct. 1, 1985.

With the Bradley commercials becoming a central issue in the campaign between the Republican governor and his Democratic challenger, The Times researched legislative records and interviewed authors of bills to determine the truth of the attack. A computer analysis of business contributions to both candidates was done by The Times Poll.

Bradley is accurate in charging that insurance and waste disposal companies have contributed generously to the Deukmejian campaign. These sources have given comparatively small amounts to Bradley.

But information prepared by the Bradley campaign to support its charges contains some errors and significant omissions, according to legislative sources.

Several of the insurance regulation bills that Bradley commercials implied were “blocked” by Deukmejian are still alive in the Legislature. And the Bradley campaign did not mention the measure that Deukmejian signed to speed action on complaints.

The mayor’s commercials charge Deukmejian with vetoing numerous toxic cleanup bills while neglecting to mention that the governor has signed an even larger number of toxics measures into law.

Bradley, far behind in the polls, has been trying to catch up by using charges such as this one in a radio commercial broadcast last month: “All you have to do is give 100, maybe 200 or 300 thousand dollars to George Deukmejian and he’ll help make you a big winner.” Deukmejian has denied the charges and said of Bradley’s message, “It’s always very negative, very whiny, very complaining.”

Deukmejian campaign director Larry Thomas strongly disputes the Bradley charges, arguing that under Deukmejian the budget for toxic enforcement programs has doubled and the number of state workers engaged in toxic management has increased by almost 40%. More fines have been levied against waste polluters than in any previous administration, he said, and Deukmejian “has signed more than 40 toxic-related bills.”

Based on a search of campaign reports dating back to 1981, the Bradley forces mounted an ad blitz saying that Deukmejian has received $248,000 from waste disposal companies and $709,000 from insurance companies.

The $248,000 figure was revised upward in later ads to more than $500,000 because donations from manufacturers and other firms that may produce polluting substances as byproducts were included.

Computer Analysis

The Times confirmed those figures and also did a computer analysis of contributions to Deukmejian’s reelection campaign, from Jan. 1, 1985, through March 31, the end of the last reporting period.

During that time, Deukmejian received $91,310 from companies that dispose of waste products.

Most of those contributors were Armenian-Americans, a group that has long provided strong financial support for Deukmejian, who is of Armenian descent and has been active in causes helping his ethnic group.

Among the Deukmejian contributors was Operating Industries, which owns a controversial Monterey dump site, parts of which it is seeking to develop into a shopping center. Bradley has charged that Deukmejian, whose campaign received $3,350 from the firm, has tried to help the company win federal permission for the center development.

Other Deukmejian contributors include the H&C; Disposal Co., a Los Angeles County firm that gave $12,700; the Refuse Industry Political Action Committee, $7,000; TSD Systems Corp., which listed itself as a landfill firm, $10,000; Waste Management of Sun Valley, $9,000, and Western Waste Industries, which also said it was a landfill firm, $7,080.

Matthew Bagdasarian of H&C; also gave Bradley $5,550 for his 1985 mayoral campaign, part of the $11,000 he received from land-fill contributors that year.

Calls Unanswered

Telephone calls to the company seeking an explanation of why it gave to both men went unanswered. A Bradley spokesman, John Stoddard, said: “There is nothing wrong with taking money as long as . . . you are taking care of the health and safety of the people under your jurisdiction. Deukmejian’s record is toxics-poor.”

Insurance companies gave Deukmejian $324,175, compared with $11,100 for Bradley. Asked why his insurance company was supporting Deukmejian, Robert Haskell of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., which donated $2,000 to the governor, said, “We have been very pleased with the governor and enjoyed a pleasant relationship and felt he deserved reelection.”

The company, which has had property and political interests in downtown Los Angeles for many years, also contributed $2,800 to Bradley’s mayoral campaign fund over a three-year period. “We contributed to Tom Bradley for mayor because he has done a terrific job as mayor,” Haskell said.

Richard H. Savage, chairman of the board of Amwest Insurance Group Inc., which contributed $15,334 to Deukmejian, said, “There’s not enough money in the world to buy the man.” Asked about Bradley’s commercials, Savage said: “If I were Bradley, I’d do the same thing. What the hell else has he got?”

The biggest insurance company contributors to Deukmejian were the Surety Co. of the Pacific, headed by longtime Deukmejian supporter William Erwin. The company gave $43,820 this year, part of $243,714 in donations over the last five years. The second-largest was Mercury Casualty Co., headed by another enthusiastic Deukmejian supporter, George Joseph. It gave $60,000 this year, and $170,000 over the last five years.

“Do you think they gave him that kind of money because they like his looks?” Bradley asked an audience in Chico last weekend, referring to the $709,000 in insurance contributions to the governor. “He doesn’t look that good.”

The Times analysis found that some of Bradley’s commercials as well as supportive materials released by the campaign on Deukmejian’s regulation of the insurance industry do not, in some instances, tell the full story.

For example, the Bradley materials say the Deukmejian Administration opposed a 1984 bill by Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Van Nuys) to establish a new system in the state Insurance Department for handling consumer complaints. Such a bill did die in a two-house conference committee that year and it was opposed by Deukmejian’s Insurance Department. But Robbins introduced the bill again in 1985, and Deukmejian signed it into law.

Of the 13 insurance bills that the Bradley campaign says Deukmejian “blocked,” seven are still alive in the Legislature. Five other bills died in Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate committees.

The commercial did not list specific bills that it alleged were “blocked” by Deukmejian. The specifics were given in backup material distributed to the press.

Opposition by Deukmejian’s insurance commissioner, Bruce Bunner, has not stalled four of the bills, which are awaiting action on the Senate floor. They were approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee last Monday.

Investigative Panels

These bills would create state panels to investigate allegations of excessive insurance rates; allow lower coverage and lower rates for those drivers over 65; require the state to force companies to pool their resources to assure coverage for high-risk areas; require insurance companies to submit annual financial reports to the Legislature.

Another bill listed in the Bradley material as being opposed by the Administration is by Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda). It calls for reduced rates for motorists over 55 who successfully complete a state-approved driver improvement course.

Insurance Commissioner Bunner originally opposed the measure. But Katz’s office said the opposition was dropped when the assemblyman agreed to eliminate a mandatory 10% reduction provision in favor of simply requiring that insurance companies offer an “appropriate percentage discount.”

The Bradley campaign insists that Deukmejian is blocking these bills, even though some of them are alive. “By every dictionary I can find, block means hinder, impede or obstruct, said Bradley press aide Ali Webb. The use of the word block is more than appropriate because the governor, in his opposition, has attempted to hinder, impede or obstruct the passage of this legislation.”

Webb said the commercials were not misleading. “If the governor had his ‘druthers,’ ” she said, “these bills would die, all of them. But they didn’t die because we have a Democratic-controlled Legislature, as well as some Republican members, more interested in the consumer than the insurance companies.”

Lack of Time Cited

Asked why the details of the legislative movement of the bills were not explained, Webb said, “If we had a 30-minute commercial, we might be able to answer all your questions.”

Bradley has also criticized Bunner, pointing out that he had dealt with contributors Joseph and Erwin while handling insurance accounts for the accounting and consulting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Bunner was a partner in the firm before his state appointment.

Bradley charged that Bunner, even though possessing the authority to assure the availability of affordable insurance, has refused to do so.

Joseph said a main industry lobbying group, the Assn. of California Insurance Cos., played a part in Bunner’s appointment.

He said the association first recommended the appointment of Robert Quinn, former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.’s last commissioner, but when Deukmejian made it clear he would not hire any Brown veterans, the group recommended Bunner, among others.

In the area of toxics, many aspects of the Bradley attack on Deukmejian were confirmed by the Times analysis, although the mayor’s commercials neglected to point out that the governor had signed 40 bills aimed at improving toxic waste regulation.

Deukmejian vetoed 12 important toxic waste bills, as Bradley has charged in commercials now being shown on television. In some of his veto messages, Deukmejian said the laws could not be enacted “if we are to stay on our prescribed course of fiscal responsibility.”

Budget Vetoes

Deukmejian also vetoed budget items that Democrats said would improve toxic enforcement. Legislative sources told The Times that Democrats made some of these additions to the budget knowing the governor would veto them. The point was to provide the Democrats with material to use against Deukmejian in the gubernatorial campaign, they said.

The bills vetoed by the governor would have: set up state financial assistance for hazardous waste reduction; required burning of some wastes containing hazardous substances; set up a $200,000 program to educate the public about hazardous wastes; provided $4.3 million for improving drinking water quality and removing toxics from underground water supplies; allowed use of emergency funds for hazardous spill cleanups; banned disposal of liquid toxics in landfills after next Jan. 1 and imposed other waste limitations; created an ombudsman’s office to advise small businesses on toxic waste handling or disposal; set up loans for assistance in disposing of agricultural pesticides; authorized small business loans for toxic cleanups.

Deukmejian also vetoed major Democratic reorganization plans, while backing his own proposal, in a bitter and well-publicized philosophical dispute over the best way to supervise and coordinate toxic waste disposal.

Other Bills Signed

But the governor also signed bills to provide for a $100-million bond issue to clean up hazardous waste sites later approved by the voters; establish a hazardous waste enforcement unit within the Department of Health Services and set up a statewide hazardous waste strike force; create regulations for storage of hazardous substances in underground tanks; spend an additional $22.5 million to halt contamination at the Stringfellow Acid Pits in Riverside County, and require testing for organic contamination of bottled water sold in California.

Other measures signed by Deukmejian permit the state to order immediate removal or remedial action by a responsible party whenever there is an imminent danger to public health from hazardous waste; make companies that fail to immediately notify emergency crews in the event of toxic spills subject to fines up to $25,000; require the Department of Motor Vehicles to adopt standards and administer knowledge tests to hazardous waste haulers, and allow public inspection of information from pesticide studies.

HOW DONORS COMPARE IN THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR Businesses were the major contributors to the gubernatorial campaigns of Gov. George Deukmejian and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, but Deukmejian was the choice of most of them. That was the finding of a Los Angeles Times Poll analysis of state campaign reports for 1985 and through March, 1986. Figures include individual and corporate donations by occupation.

TOM BRADLEY, Democrat Total Contributions: $1,571,917

Category Amount Contributed Developers (Real Estate, Construction etc.) $259,962 Investment (Stockbrokers, Investment Bankers) 140,750 Attorneys 103,875 Entertainment Industry 55,125 Food (Markets, Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Dairies) 50,950 Banks 39,450 Medical (CMA, Doctors, Dentists, Health Plans) 33,103 Financial (Mortgage Brokers, Venture Capital) 31,650 Marine 31,600 Non-Governmental Unions 27,100 Retail Stores 26,025 Foreign Trade (Custom Brokers, Import-Export) 22,750 Restaurants 16,100 Auto Dealers 13,127 Retirees and Individuals 12,175 Transportation 11,950 Insurance 11,100 Accountants 10,550 Oil 9,800 Management Consultants 9,150

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Republican Total Contributions: $6,927,403

Category Amount Contributed Developers (Real Estate, Construction etc.) $1,312,935 Attorneys 522,661 Agri-business 486,395 Retirees and Individuals 362,260 Medical (CMA, Doctors, Dentists, Health Plans) 326,105 Insurance 324,175 Investment (Stockbrokers, Investment Bankers) 303,710 Oil 247,325 Financial (Mortgage Brokers, Venture Capital) 247,200 Auto Dealers 179,230 Banks 159,800 Manufacturing 148,855 Retail Stores 133,015 Government Employees 130,340 Restaurants 122,390 Food (Markets, Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Dairies) 118,985 Aerospace 102,290 Electronics 101,165 Savings and Loans 99,975 Landfills (Disposal Service, Dumps) 91,310