Van de Kamp Rips Mailer on Prop. 68 as ‘Misleading’

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp Saturday assailed as “misleading” a last-minute slate mailer that suggests that he opposes Proposition 68 when, in fact, he is a leading supporter of the initiative to limit campaign spending.

Van de Kamp’s attack came as thousands of dollars in contributions continued to pour into the campaigns on both sides of the issue, financing a barrage of television and mail advertisements in the final days before Tuesday’s election.

Fund raising for and against Proposition 68 has not matched the expectations of either side, particularly the opposition group, which at one point talked of raising as much as $3 million.

As of Saturday, supporters of the initiative reported receiving about $815,000 in contributions from more than 2,000 individuals, businesses and organizations, including Common Cause, one of the major sponsors of the proposition.

The main organization opposing the measure reported receiving about $685,000 but said it expects to have at least $1 million by Monday. Their contributions have come from about 40 different donors, many of them special-interest groups whose future political contributions to legislators would be limited by the measure.

Proposition 68, which is designed to curtail the influence of special-interest groups, would provide matching tax dollars to qualified candidates who agree to abide by limits on campaign spending. It also would limit the size of campaign contributions, ban fund raising in non-election years, and prohibit the transfer of campaign funds among candidates.

The attorney general took exception to a slate mailer sent out by a Sherman Oaks firm called Barad & Levine that links his name to the statement, “Proposition 68 is bad for Democrats.”

Linked to Cranston

The mailer suggests that both Van de Kamp and U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston “agree.” Cranston is neutral on the proposition. The mailer then goes on to call for a vote against Proposition 73, a competing campaign finance measure that both Cranston and Van de Kamp oppose.

“I resent anyone trying to misuse me in that fashion,” said Van de Kamp, who is featured in television and radio commercials supporting Proposition 68. “It is an obvious attempt to try to confuse people. The fact of the matter is these kinds of mailers have been effective.”

The “No on Proposition 68 and 73” campaign committee paid $25,000 to carry its message on the mailer, which focused primarily on judicial races. Campaign strategist Michael Berman, who helped prepare other mailers for the opposition campaign, said Barad & Levine erred in preparing their slate.

“They made a mistake,” Berman said. “That is not what I gave them. The No on 68 and 73 campaign did not provide anything to misrepresent John Van de Kamp’s position.”

Denies Intent to Confuse

Larry Levine, who helped produce the mailer, said he drew the statement from material provided by Berman and added: “I’m sorry if Van de Kamp thinks it was misleading or deceptive. It was certainly not the intent.”

The lack of contributions to the two campaigns suggests that the measure has not aroused the emotions of supporters--or the fears of special-interest groups that could be affected by the measure.

About 75% of the money contributed to the opposition campaign has arrived in the last two weeks, beginning with a $200,000 donation from Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), said Al Pross, California Medical Assn. finance director who is helping raise money for the opposition campaign.

“Special interests will be made more powerful under Proposition 68 because their individual donors will be able to maximize and leverage their contributions with taxpayers’ dollars,” Pross said. “It’s going to have no impact whatsoever on most of the large donors.”

Contribution Pattern

But Walter Zelman, manager of the campaign in favor of Proposition 68 said the pattern of campaign contributions illustrates the differences between the two sides.

“The opposition to campaign reform is funded by a handful of politicians and special-interest groups who raise and spend millions of dollars each year,” he charged. “They oppose Proposition 68 because it would cut their ability to buy and sell influence in California.”

According to a study released by Zelman on contributions made through June 2, the 15 largest contributors to the opposition campaign are major political donors that over the last three years gave $7.1 million in contributions to state candidates.

In contrast, the top 15 contributors to the campaign in support of Proposition 68 gave $478,000 in political contributions during the last three years, the study showed.

Leading Contributors

Among the leading contributors to the opposition campaign were the California Medical Assn. Political Action Committee, $100,000; the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., $55,000, and seven insurance companies and industry groups that gave a total of $145,000.

Major contributors to the campaign in support of Proposition 68 included Common Cause $103,422; the campaign fund of the late state Treasurer Jesse M. Unruh, $100,000; Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., $37,000; McKesson Corp., $33,000, and the League of Women Voters, $24,500.

Zelman said the fact that the Proposition 68 campaign has collected contributions from more than 2,000 different sources indicates broad-based backing for the proposition.