A New Way of Taking the Initiative

Once every few years, a political campaign comes along that serves as a harbinger of the future. It does something different, or takes a new risk, and the political world is changed.

We may be seeing one of those watershed campaigns developing now. If Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp succeeds in becoming the next governor, many moons will pass before another candidate dares run for statewide office without a troika of ballot propositions leading the charge.

As is the case with many new directions in politics, this was a strategy born of trouble. Through the spring of this year Van de Kamp remained dead still in the polls, showing little promise of closing the gap between himself and Sen. Pete Wilson. So his advisers decided to invest in a new kind of solution. What you might call a campaign-by-proxy.

Instead of exclusively hawking Van de Kamp, which was not working, the advisers decided to create and hawk propositions. If the voters liked the propositions, then maybe the good vibes would rub off on the candidate. There is an indirect, almost Zen, quality to it.

Of course, politicians have long attached themselves to ongoing initiatives in California when they sensed there was mileage to be gained. But rarely have candidates taken on the burden of sponsoring the propositions themselves. And no one has produced a phalanx of initiatives equal to the Van de Kamp campaign.

Briefly, that phalanx consists of three major efforts: an environmental measure dealing with everything from oil spills to the ozone layer; a get-tough-on-drugs act, and an ethics initiative to clean up what’s usually called “the mess in Sacramento.”

The magnitude of this effort is huge. The rule of thumb says that it costs $700,000 just to qualify a statewide proposition for the ballot. All three will come to $2.1 million. Then you get to organize and pay for the campaigns themselves.

Why is Van de Kamp doing this? There are a couple of reasons, and they tell us something about the times in which we live.

The first has to do with a loophole that left initiative campaigns untrammeled by the new, harsh limits on political contributions. As per last year’s Proposition 73, candidates can accept only $1,000 from each contributor. But contributions to an initiative are unrestricted. Theoretically, Van de Kamp’s anti-drug proposition could collect millions for television spots and feature Van de Kamp in all of them. None of those costs would be charged against his gubernatorial bankroll.

Much has been made of the loophole business, but I think the most powerful motive for employing the campaign-by-proxy lies elsewhere. Someone--most likely it was Richie Ross, Van de Kamp’s chief consultant--correctly perceived that the initiative process maintains a unique and powerful hold on the electorate. Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as the voters’ own, the sole arena where they can vent their rage and frustration at a dysfunctional government. Tap into that emotion, associate yourself with it, and you’ve got something.

Take this example: Van de Kamp has long been seen as a Sacramento insider, a career candidate. This image was hurting him, so how to change it? If he makes a speech denying his insider status, everyone laughs. But throw an initiative on the table that attacks the Willie Browns and other insiders, that limits their terms and makes them howl, and suddenly Van de Kamp has a new role. He is the enemy of the insider.

So together these initiatives create for Van de Kamp an alter ego, an identity he previously lacked. Combine all three and you get this picture of the prospective governor: a government outsider who’s tough on crime and will protect our air and water. Not bad.

Because this message is delivered by initiative, it has credibility. But is this really Van de Kamp? Or is it a bunch of ballot propositions posing as Van de Kamp? Does it make a difference?

You could argue it doesn’t. The voter, after all, is getting a chance to pre-approve a whole legislative program. A warranty of sorts. In that sense the very issue of who serves as governor is somewhat diminished. His program has been established before he ever takes office.

But ultimately, of course, it does make a difference. The campaign-by-proxy blurs reality and twists our perceptions of the man running for office. It is a trick, like so many modern campaign devices. Has Van de Kamp really stopped being a government insider because his proposition says so? You answer that. And will California voters buy into this latest subterfuge? We’ll find out next November. Stay tuned.