Attorney General--It’s a ‘Nice-Guy’ Campaign

One would have to search far and wide this year to find a campaign more polite than the contest for attorney general.

Both candidates, Democratic incumbent John Van de Kamp and Republican challenger Bruce Gleason, have avoided harsh attacks. Instead, they say pleasant things about each other.

“I’ve met him once. He seems to be a nice fellow,” Van de Kamp says of his opponent.

“Personally, I like him,” Gleason says of Van de Kamp. “He has impeccable credentials. He’s a good public servant.”

Van de Kamp, who expects to have nearly $1 million to bankroll his campaign, can afford to be nice. Gleason, one-time city attorney of Needles, cannot afford much else. He will be lucky to raise $30,000 to support his candidacy.

“It’s a funny campaign because I don’t know what they’re doing or what their strategy is,” Van de Kamp said. “I guess they’re underfunded.”

In an Enviable Position

Such token opposition from the Republican Party puts Van de Kamp in an enviable position among California’s politicians. An easy victory in his bid for a second term as attorney general could leave him in good shape to run for governor in 1990.

Three other attorneys have also thrown their hats in the ring, but none has mounted a substantial campaign. Robert J. Evans of Oakland is the Peace and Freedom Party candidate, Carol L. Newman is representing the Libertarian Party and Gary R. Odom of Walnut is the American Independent Party candidate.

No well-known, well-financed Republican emerged to take on Van de Kamp, Gleason said, because of the attorney general’s prominent name and apparent popularity after more than a decade in public office.

“Van de Kamp is perceived as being too formidable,” Gleason said. “The most constant thing I hear is that Van de Kamp syndrome: ‘You’ll never beat him. He’s too tough. He’s got too much money. He’s too well organized.’ ”

Van de Kamp, 50, who was Los Angeles County district attorney and, before that, the county’s first federal public defender, has kept a low profile during his first term as attorney general. He has cooperated well with Republican Gov. George Deukmejian and avoided making major political mistakes that could hurt him this year.

As attorney general, he has pushed for the use of the latest technological advances to aid criminal investigations, including the installation of a computerized fingerprint identification system to help identify suspects around the state. Van de Kamp has also sought to emphasize antitrust, consumer and environmental protection cases--areas that he said received less attention under his predecessor, Deukmejian.

Surprised by Victory

On the Republican side, Gleason, 62, surprised even himself when he won the nomination in June.

He spent only $9,100 in the primary--$8,800 of it his own money. But he believes that it was a $2,500 investment that won the race for him.

Toward the close of the campaign, he paid that amount to have his name listed on a mailer with Deukmejian and other Republican candidates. The mailer was sent to 2.4 million Republican homes.

Deukmejian later disavowed the campaign literature because it also urged a “no” vote on Proposition 51, the “deep pockets” liability initiative that the governor endorsed. Nevertheless, it was the most effective part of Gleason’s primary campaign.

For the past 31 years, Gleason has worked in a one-man law office in Panorama City. During 1959 and 1960, he worked as the appointed city attorney of Needles, driving once a week to the remote desert town for City Council meetings.

A former president of the San Fernando Valley Bar Assn., Gleason is making his second bid for elective office. In 1966, he ran for Municipal Court judge but lost in the primary.

A Democrat for most of his life, he said he joined the Republican Party in 1969 because of his disillusionment with Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War.

Gleason admits to being a little “burned out” on the practice of law. “I have not had a spectacular legal career,” he said. “I have been a suburban lawyer.”

Attended Seminary

Several years ago, he attended Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena but decided against a career as a minister.

Gleason acknowledges that he has little chance of winning his campaign for attorney general but says he has long aspired to the top lawyer’s job in the state.

“If God ordains that I win the race, I will make California history,” he said. “I admit it’s a long shot.”

Gleason’s sharpest attack on Van de Kamp was a press release sent out by his campaign that called Van de Kamp a “wimp” when it came to prosecuting major drug dealers.

But in an interview, Gleason quickly backed away from such a nasty approach, attributing it to his campaign manager, Frank Schubert.

“I disclaim the word wimp, “ Gleason said. “I’m not comfortable with that word. That was really Frank’s word. I would simply say that he (Van de Kamp) is not assertive, not aggressive, lacking zeal as a prosecutor.”

While Gleason criticizes Van de Kamp’s performance, he praises him personally. The Republican candidate enjoys telling the story of going to a Democratic-sponsored breakfast in the San Fernando Valley earlier this year where the attorney general was scheduled to speak. Although the master of ceremonies ignored Gleason when introducing visiting dignitaries, Van de Kamp asked Gleason to stand and be recognized.

“That just floored me,” he said. “It was an extraordinarily considerate and gracious act on his part.”

Gleason has attempted to focus his campaign on Van de Kamp’s opposition to the death penalty, an issue that many Republicans are trying to use against Democratic candidates this year. The attorney general’s office is responsible for prosecuting all state capital cases on appeal. But, because he is against capital punishment, Van de Kamp has removed himself from participation in any death penalty cases and turned them over to his staff.

“He is the attorney general,” Gleason said. “If he is lukewarm about enforcing the death penalty, that would have to proliferate down to his staff.”

Van de Kamp is philosophical about such charges, contending that public attitudes toward the death penalty will soften when California resumes executing criminals.

Noting that some capital defendants have nearly exhausted their legal appeals and that the composition of the California Supreme Court is likely to change after the November election, Van de Kamp said, “I fully expect we’ll see some executions in California in the next four years.”

Lack of Money

While the death penalty has been a popular issue this year, Gleason has been handicapped by his inability to raise a significant amount of money for his campaign so that he can carry his message to the voters.

Although Gleason said Republican polls show him trailing Van de Kamp by 30 to 40 percentage points, running television commercials at this point is out of the question.

“I’ve thought a number of times, ‘I’ll refinance my house and draw some money out,’ ” he said. “But on the other hand, I don’t know that $100,000 or $125,000 would make a lot of difference.”

At the same time, Van de Kamp does not expect to spend all of the nearly $1 million that he estimates he will raise--but he does want to make sure that voters remember who he is.

“I imagine we will at least leave a calling card on TV,” Van de Kamp said. “I think it’s important when you run that you let people know that you care.”