Foes of Toxics Measure Outspend Backers 4 to 1

In the bruising campaign over Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative, opponents outspent supporters by more than 4 to 1 over the past two months, according to campaign spending statements made public Tuesday.

In an effort to overcome what opinion polls show to be strong support for the initiative, the No on 65 campaign reported spending more than $2 million between July 1 and Sept. 30. Large contributions from oil and chemical companies, defense contractors, the computer industry and agribusiness accounted for most of the money collected.

As of Sept. 30, the anti-65 campaign spent $867,000 for television time and $396,000 for outdoor advertising--ending the reporting period $85,000 in debt.

In contrast, the Yes on 65 campaign reported raising $814,000 over the past two months, much of it from the entertainment industry where the toxics initiative has had enthusiastic support. Included in the total were substantial non-cash contributions and a $200,000 loan. However, the campaign spent only $439,000--leaving it with $246,000 on hand with just over a month left before the Nov. 4 election.

The initiative would limit the discharge into drinking water of chemicals believed to cause cancer and birth defects. It would also require businesses to warn employees and consumers of exposure to significant levels of those chemicals. The measure also provides for citizen lawsuits to enforce its provisions, adds new civil penalties for violations, and increases existing criminal penalties for illegal dumping.

The opposition hopes to raise an additional $3 million or more in the weeks ahead, said No on 65 campaign manager Michael Gagan.

However, the pro-65 committee, expecting to be heavily outspent, is pleased that opponents were so far behind their announced goal at the end of the latest reporting period, said Thomas Epstein, manager of the Yes on 65 campaign.

The contributors to the anti-65 committee represent many of the state’s largest industrial companies, with large oil firms leading the way, including Chevron Corp., $222,697; Atlantic Richfield Co., $70,000; Exxon Co. USA, $70,000; and Shell Oil Co., $75,000, and Texaco Services Inc., $70,000. The chemical company contributors included Dow Chemical, $50,000; Monsanto Co., $50,000; and Stauffer Chemical Co., $40,000.

Among the high-tech corporate contributors fighting the toxics initiative were IBM, $35,000; Hewlett-Packard Co., $35,000, and Western Digital Corp., $25,000. Defense contractors opposing Proposition 65 included Hughes Aircraft Co., $35,000; Lockheed Corp., $35,000; McDonnell Douglas Corp., $50,000, and Northrop Corp., $35,000.

The Yes on 65 committee received $124,785 from the Sierra Club, one of the chief sponsors of the initiative, and a $200,000 loan backed by Breslauer, Jacobson & Rutman, a Los Angeles accounting firm that represents clients in the entertainment industry. The pro-65 campaign also received $107,530 from MCA, Inc.--a share in the profit from an August rock concert. Kaleidoscope Films provided the non-cash equivalent of $62,500 for the filming of the campaign’s television commercials, and Lorimar Telepictures picked up the $42,362 cost for a party in connection with a celebrity tour backing the initiative.