We Won’t Dance, Top Candidates Say of Funding Shuffle : Politics: Ballot initiatives will not be used to get around campaign spending laws, Van de Kamp and Wilson vow. But suspicion refuses to die.

Two leading candidates for governor are taking the pledge--the pledge not to try to waltz their way around California’s new and confusing campaign spending laws.

This curious phenomenon arises because of the intertwining of campaigns for high office and campaigns for ballot initiatives during this upcoming election cycle. Both Democratic Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson have chosen to link their 1990 campaigns for governor with grass-roots ballot proposals. Other candidates are contemplating coming forth with their own ballot measures.

Under California law enacted by voters in 1988, candidates for office are under strict financial limits. They can receive no more than $1,000 per contributor per year, meaning an end to easy financing from fat-cat donors. Candidates are instead forced into desperate searches for lots of friends with $1,000 to spare.

The fat-cat still has a happy home, however, in supporting ballot initiatives. There are no contribution limits for such propositions. And with old-fashioned ballot favorites like crime, corruption and the environment leading the agenda of proposals, money is bound to flow in large chunks, meaning large advertising campaigns.

So the question is: Does Wilson or Van de Kamp intend to appear in television or direct mail advertising paid for by the ballot initiative campaigns, thereby supplementing his own limited advertising budget? Or more simply, are ballot initiatives really a shortcut around spending limits?

No, both Van de Kamp and Wilson now insist.

The two said they fully intend to pay for their own commercials to link themselves in the public eye with their pet proposals--but only using money they have collected under the $1,000 per contribution limit.

And this week, as they have before, they separately pledged not to appear in advertisements--broadcast or printed--paid for from the treasuries of ballot propositions they are pushing. Another major Democratic candidate for governor, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, has resisted the temptation to work up her own catchy initiative and is not part of the controversy.

“Utter nonsense,” said Van de Kamp about the continued suspicion that he would somehow use the initiatives to finance his own campaign. “I’ll be putting much more into these campaigns than I’ll ever get out of them in terms of television broadcasting or the rest.”

Van de Kamp is a sponsor of three initiatives--one on legislative ethics, another on crime and drugs, and a third on environmental preservation.

Said Wilson about his one ballot proposal to speed up criminal trials: “The initiative will not pay for any spots in which I appear, not ads in print, radio or on television.”

This did not end the controversy, however.

Wilson indicated Wednesday that he remains skeptical of Van de Kamp’s pledge. He cited a letter from a Sacramento law firm to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, seeking clarification of the issue. The letter, on behalf of an unnamed candidate, asked specifically whether someone seeking office could appear in ads for an initiative outside of the spending limit.

“So far there is only one candidate pushing ballot initiatives for the 1990 campaign,” said Wilson.

Actually, Wilson turned out to be mistaken. The inquiry was not made on behalf of Van de Kamp, but for Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, who is considering whether to sponsor a 1990 ballot initiative and wanted clarification of the rules.

So far, the commission has declined to make a clear-cut ruling on the issue. It rejected the McCarthy letter because of its policy to refuse anonymous inquiry.

“I don’t think the rules are strict enough. And I don’t know what the commission can do,” said Chairman John Larson.

“Speaking for me, and probably all the commissioners, I think there should be restrictions on candidates appearing on television (advertisements) in connection with ballot propositions. I would hope that we can reach that conclusion. That would be the appropriate conclusion,” he said.

The stakes for candidates are easy enough to fathom. Wilson has set a campaign budget of about $16 million for his campaign, Van de Kamp $10 million. Most of that money will end up in advertising. A few million more in advertising, tied to a ballot proposition campaign, could add substantially to a candidate’s crucial exposure late in a campaign.

Van de Kamp said the whole issue is overblown because the intention of voters is clear. They want candidates limited in receiving contributions. And, he said, the precedents of the Fair Political Practices Commission are unmistakable: Initiatives will not be allowed to serve as a way around campaign finance limits.

Wilson remained unpersuaded. “This is a very serious potential problem. There is a very large and unintended loophole,” he said.