THE TIMES POLL : Cranston Image Plunges Over Role in Lincoln Case

Californians have turned against Sen. Alan Cranston because of his controversial involvement in the Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal and now believe overwhelmingly that he should leave the Senate when his term expires, The Times Poll has found.

Democrats and Republicans alike think Cranston acted improperly by soliciting large political donations from Lincoln owner Charles H. Keating Jr., and then intervening on the S&L;’s behalf before federal regulators, the poll showed.

The voters’ once-positive impression of the veteran Democrat has turned topsy-turvy--from 56% to 32% favorable as recently as early October to a very negative 58% to 32% unfavorable in this latest survey.

Many voters, 41%, think Cranston should not even wait until his term expires in 1993, but should resign right now. Only 37% believe that he should serve out his term.

“Well, I’m not at all surprised,” Cranston told The Times on Thursday. “There have been a lot of wild, unfounded charges. It has been difficult getting the facts through to the people, but we have time and when they know the facts I am convinced their judgment will be different.”

Cranston’s suddenly poor image among Californians was measured in a statewide survey of 2,046 adults--1,594 of them registered voters--during five days of telephone interviewing that ended Wednesday night. The margin of error is three percentage points in either direction.

Few politicians have survived with the California electorate for as long as Alan Cranston. Twice elected state controller and four times elected to the U.S. Senate, where he is majority whip, the liberal Democrat has been telling people he plans to run for a fifth term in 1992 at the age of 78. But voters in this survey were telling Cranston to forget it.

Asked whether they thought that Cranston had “performed his job . . . well enough to deserve reelection,” or did they think “it’s time to give a new person a chance,” the vast majority of registered voters--79%--said it is time to change senators.

Cranston, a strongly partisan Democrat throughout his political career, does not now have the support even of fellow party members. Seventy-one percent think he does not deserve reelection--as do 69% of self-described liberals, 82% of older people, 76% of union members, 78% of low-income people and 77% of Los Angeles County residents. Only 41% of Democrats think Cranston should even serve out the rest of his term; 38% call on him to resign now and 21% have no opinion.

In other words, Cranston’s traditional constituency has deserted him.

“Of course, Cranston has two years before the next Senate campaign to regain his former popularity, but right now he is hemorrhaging badly and it’s not clear how he can stop the bleeding,” said Times Poll Director I. A. Lewis.

The Lincoln S&L; controversy has been simmering for months, but only in recent weeks has the full, complex story begun to unfold in public. Cranston and four other senators have been accused of interfering with a federal investigation of Lincoln in exchange for substantial political donations from owner Keating. Cranston received $850,000 on behalf of three voter registration groups and also accepted $47,000 in direct campaign contributions.

Lincoln’s parent corporation, American Continental, declared bankruptcy last April, and federal regulators then seized the Irvine-based S&L;, more than two years after regional regulators had advocated a government takeover. Many blame the senators’ intervention for the delay in taking over the thrift, a procrastination that contributed significantly to the taxpayers’ expected $2.3-billion bailout cost of repaying insured depositors. The delay also allowed Lincoln to continue selling uninsured junk bonds to 24,000 investors, mainly retirees, whose $200-million investment now is worthless.

Although Cranston asserts that allegations against him of wrongdoing are “ridiculous,” voters interviewed by The Times Poll strongly disagree.

Asked whether it was proper for Cranston “to argue Lincoln’s case before federal regulators after receiving large political contributions” from Keating, 79% of the registered voters--including 76% of Democrats--answered that it was improper.

Punctuating how seriously the voters view these accusations against Cranston, 89% said they regard them as important--63% as “very” important.

“All things considered,” voters were asked, “would you say that Sen. Alan Cranston is honest or not?” Less than a third--32%--thought the senator was honest; 40% considered him to be dishonest and 28% had no opinion.

Cranston is not the only powerful California politician affected by the Lincoln collapse. Gov. George Deukmejian received $153,000 in campaign contributions from Keating, his companies, business associates and family. It was Deukmejian’s Department of Corporations that allowed Lincoln to sell the high-risk junk bonds that turned out to be worthless. The Republican governor has said that he knew nothing about the approval.

Also, Deukmejian’s chief political fund-raiser, Los Angeles attorney Karl M. Samuelian, was hired by Keating to help represent Lincoln before state government agencies. The governor has told The Times that Samuelian never discussed his work with him or anybody else in his office.

But 71% of the voters interviewed by The Times Poll--including 64% of the Republicans--said they were “suspicious about those incidents.” Only 11% believed there “was probably no connection between the Keating contributions and the (bond sale) permission given to Lincoln.”

As for the widespread collapse of savings and loans generally across the country, California voters principally blame “desire for profits,” followed by “failure of government inspection” and “(government) deregulation of the industry.”

The electorate is very cynical about the connection between political donations and government decisions; 78% said they believe that contributors “often receive special favors in return” for their campaign money, and 86% said large donors buy influence.

Seventy-four percent asserted that ordinary voters would be better represented if candidates “were not permitted to accept campaign contributions from special-interest groups and political action committees.”

And two-thirds of the voters--Republicans and Democrats alike--said they would be willing to back up these convictions with money by adding “a dollar or two” to their state income taxes “to finance political campaigns and eliminate all private contributions in California.”

IMPRESSION OF CRANSTON

The favorable impression of Senator Cranston has collapsed since Registered voters in percent. June 1985 Favorable: 55% Unfavorable: 27% May 1986 Favorable: 62% Unfavorable: 31% Oct. 1989 Favorable: 56% Unfavorable: 32% Dec. 1989 Favorable: 32% Unfavorable: 58% NOTE: ‘Don’t know’ responses account for remaining percentages.

Source: Los Angeles Times Poll