Van de Kamp Ponders Political ‘Swamp’ : Campaigns: The candidate’s initiative promises to drain it, but his opponents suggest he may already have wet feet.

For John K. Van de Kamp, Democratic candidate for governor, California attorney general and veteran politician, it was a question of the ticklish kind. But not necessarily the trivial kind.

Here he was, in front of the massed Capitol press corps on Monday, denouncing special interest money as having made a moral “swamp” of state government. Here he was, offering the final draft of his bold ballot initiative proposal to “drain the swamp” with 64 pages of new laws--limiting campaign spending, offering taxpayer financing for candidates, restricting their terms in office and imposing a broad code of ethics on elected officials.

“The quest for campaign money never stops. Those who do not play the game are very quickly overwhelmed by those who do. So the rule becomes play or die. And everybody plays,” he said.

But, then, what of Van de Kamp? What special treatment has he given to special interests during his career in politics? After all, for seven years as state attorney general and seven before that as Los Angeles County district attorney, Van de Kamp has proven an accomplished fund-raiser, with broad support in the very special-interest community he blames for strangling government through semi-legal corruption.

“I think it can be said that those who have contributed in the past have often asked to come in and talk. Frankly, I see them,” Van de Kamp replied, as if, yes, special interests had received special treatment. Most politicians grant that money does buy access, not more.

But then Van de Kamp added quickly, “At the same time, I would see anyone who called in and made a special request to talk, even my opponents. That’s just the way I behave. . . .

“I don’t think my decisions have been influenced by those (special interest) groups,” he added.

As for others, though, he was not so kind: “By all accounts the worse abuses occur in soliciting campaign contributions. Yet our laws in that area are so weak that only the very dumb or the very careless are ever caught violating them.”

The question of righteousness, in one form or another, is bound to follow Van de Kamp in the upcoming 1990 campaign for governor. His sponsorship of this ballot proposal, titled “The Clean Government Initiative,” was from its conception an effort to reshape his image as a crusading political outsider rather than status quo insider. And it has spawned powerful enemies as well as eager allies along the way.

Both of his major opponents in the 1990 campaign zeroed in on the question Monday.

The campaign of Republican candidate and U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson drew attention to several positions Van de Kamp has taken over the years.

“For the last seven years John Van de Kamp has lifted nary a finger for the legislative program for the California district attorneys. Instead I think you will find he has been exceptionally close to the California trial lawyers, who are on the other side,” said Wilson aide Otto Bos.

Also cited by Bos was Van de Kamp’s lead role in opposing a ballot measure in 1986 to limit tort claims in personal injury cases, a measure strongly opposed by trial lawyers. In 1982, Van de Kamp also was one of only two district attorneys to oppose an anti-crime ballot proposition called the Victims’ Bill of Rights. Again, he was on the side of trial lawyers.

“We haven’t heard a peep from John Van de Kamp on this issue of ethics. . . . Only now that it’s politically expedient does he posture as Mr. Outsider while all along he has happily been partaking as Mr. Insider. I think frankly the public is not going to buy that,” said Bos.

From Democrat Dianne Feinstein, former mayor of San Francisco and also a candidate, came similar criticism. “Here’s Mr. Insider trying to reposition himself as Mr. Outsider. Remember, as chief law enforcement officer for California he is the one responsible for rooting out corruption in California. And he hasn’t done it.”

The major elements of Van de Kamp’s proposal were outlined at an earlier series of press conferences. His appearances Monday in Sacramento and San Jose were to divulge the precise language of the complicated ballot measure--and to see how much more news attention he could draw with the issue. This initiative is one of three that form the major planks of Van de Kamp’s campaign platform--the others dealing with environmental protection and criminal justice.

In this case, the passage of time between first announcement of the measure and Monday’s press conferences gave opponents time to sharpen their attack.

From the Legislature, Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson of La Habra bored in on what may be the measure’s biggest soft spot: partial public financing of campaigns.

“This is going to open the state treasury and provide tens of millions of dollars to politicians running for office,” Johnson said through a spokeswoman.

One goal set by Van de Kamp, and his ally in the effort, the activist group Common Cause, was to limit overall campaign spending for all state offices. The Supreme Court has held that the only effective way to limit spending is to offer candidates taxpayer funding.

In this case, candidates for the Assembly could spend up to $250,000 in the primary and $400,000 in the general election. For the state Senate, $425,000 and $700,000. Statewide offices, such as attorney general and insurance commissioner, $1.5 million and $2.4 million. For governor, $4.5 million and $7.2 million.

Candidates who agree to such limits would receive some of their total allotment direct from the treasury. To try and ease the sting of the idea, Van de Kamp proposed allowing citizens to designate on their income tax forms whether they want $5 of their taxes to be used to help finance these campaigns. The total cost to the treasury was estimated at $15 million. If citizens did not cover the bills with check-offs, Van de Kamp acknowledged, “we may have to go to the general fund.”

All kinds of politicians have previously reacted unhappily to a third major element of the proposal: A limit of two four-year terms for governor and other statewide offices and 12 years for a seat in the Legislature. Van de Kamp noted with a smile that he has lived up to the spirit of his reform by never trying to hold an office longer than his proposal would permit.

NEXT STEP

Valid signatures of 595,484 registered voters will have to be collected in the next five months to qualify this proposed amendment to the state Constitution for a spot on the November, 1988, ballot. A rule of thumb is that from 800,000 to 1 million raw signatures will be needed to assure enough valid ones.