Van de Kamp’s Limited-Term Plan Blasted

When he threatened the career longevity of his fellow politicians en masse, Democratic candidate for governor John K. Van de Kamp was egging for a fight. Now, he’s got one splattering all around him--and the ambitions of most everyone in California politics may hang in the balance. Not the least of which ambitions are his own.

Van de Kamp, California attorney general and longtime political insider, is gambling that in the 1990 gubernatorial campaign he can establish himself as a voter-pleasing outsider. One means: A ballot initiative limiting elected officials to serving only 12 years consecutively in any one state office, a cornerstone of a larger “ethics in government” package.

Sounded Their Disgust

Slowly at first, mindful they were his foil, legislators, particularly majority Democrats, sounded their disgust at this idea of curbing seniority. They courted would-be Van de Kamp rivals. They ridiculed Van de Kamp’s record of service. Then, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) took a bolder stroke earlier this week with an announcement that he would rush ahead with legislation to ban Van de Kamp and other statewide candidates from fund raising during this off-election year, just as legislators are prohibited from doing.

On Thursday, the reaction grew hotter when two of Van de Kamp’s chief rivals denounced his term-limit proposal.

State Controller Gray Davis said it was “crazy.”

Former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein called it “arbitrary . . . a cheap shot.”

Feinstein is an announced candidate for governor. She was interviewed in between campaign stops in Southern California. Davis spoke to reporters at a breakfast in Los Angeles. He remains on the periphery of the June, 1990, Democratic primary, and said Thursday that he would run against Van de Kamp only in the event Feinstein drops out.

“As mayor,” Feinstein said, “I served under a two-term limit. I am opposed to it. Everybody has a right to run, including incumbents. It takes a period of time to become effective, to develop the contacts that enable you to become effective. This is arbitrary and a mistake. . . . It’s a cheap shot.”

Davis said the Van de Kamp ballot proposition will not bring fresh blood into politics, as the attorney general suggests. Instead, Davis sees a “high stakes game of musical chairs” at the turn of the century as elected officials swap offices to keep their careers in politics alive.

Under terms of the proposal, which still has to be drafted and qualified for the ballot with the signatures of more than half a million Californians, the 12-year clock does not begin ticking until 1990. That means no one would be forced out of an office until 2002.

‘Worst in Politics’

“I think the term-limit deal is crazy. . . . It’s like saying that after 12 years of being a brain surgeon you have to become a heart surgeon. It’s going to bring out the worst in politics,” Davis said.

Van de Kamp supporters welcome the increasing attention.

“I can’t believe they threw us in that brier patch,” one delighted adviser said. The campaign figures that picking a fight with legislators and politicians is a proven strategy for reaching the governor’s office.

Republican Ronald Reagan did it and so did Democrat Edmund G. Brown Jr.

For Van de Kamp, the confrontation makes sense on three levels, his strategists believe. It gives the attorney general something to advance in the debate over political ethics. Secondly, it detaches him from his reputation as the Establishment’s favorite man and gives his candidacy the cast of insurgency. Finally, it challenges the stereotype that Van de Kamp is overly cautious by showing him willing to make powerful enemies.

“Given the deterioration of the environment in California, of ethical standards, of transportation, of the ability to regulate and reform things like insurance, what harm can come from an experiment like limiting terms?” asked Richie Ross, campaign manager for Van de Kamp.

“There are 50 states, 50 laboratories for democracy. This is a reform that seems to have successfully worked when applied to the executive level and, in some cases, the local level.”