Taunts Liven Governor Race : Politics: John K. Van de Kamp calls on Sen. Pete Wilson to return honorariums he has received for speeches and articles. Wilson retorts that Van de Kamp has done little to root out corruption in the state Capitol.

Bearing down for all he can on the popular issue of political ethics, Democratic candidate for governor John K. Van de Kamp taunted GOP rival Pete Wilson on Thursday to return more than $200,000 in honorariums he was paid for speeches and articles.

Van de Kamp filled the air with excited political slogans at a Sacramento press conference, calling the money “dishonoraria” and saying it amounts to a “corrupt charade” on Californians.

Before all the candidates were through having their say, it also amounted to the nastiest day of the 1990 campaign for governor.

“In the political context, honorarium is a high-sounding way of saying that a wealthy special-interest group is putting money directly into the pocket of a legislator it wants to influence,” said Van de Kamp, California’s incumbent attorney general.

Wilson, the two-term U.S. senator, declined the bait. Without addressing whether he might give second thought to returning seven years of accumulated fees he charged for speeches and articles, Wilson issued a long statement critical of Van de Kamp. Wilson said the attorney general is trying to make up for years “asleep at the switch” while the clouds of corruption darkened the state Capitol.

Dianne Feinstein, the former mayor of San Francisco and Van de Kamp’s Democratic primary challenger, joined the fray. She, too, faulted the attorney general as a “Johnny-come-lately” to the cause of cleaning up politics.

“He has been California’s chief law officer for the past seven years. He has failed to launch a single serious ethics investigation. In fact, the FBI had to investigate corruption in the state Capitol because the attorney general wouldn’t. . . . Californians should look at this record and not his rhetoric.”

Asked repeatedly at his press conference about why he has not been a corruption-busting attorney general, Van de Kamp struggled for an answer. He paused repeatedly, beginning and only half-finishing several sentences. Finally, he said he instigated no sweeping investigation of the capital because nobody actually reported widespread criminal acts of corruption to him.

History, such as it is, is likely to record this day as the one which settled the question of whether the 1990 campaign for governor will follow the high road. The answer seems a big NO. Up to this point, Feinstein has been sharply personal in her attacks, but Wilson and Van de Kamp have been more or less restrained, at least in public. But no longer.

Wilson called Van de Kamp’s press conference mud-slinging that hit below the belt. “Sad to see,” Wilson said.

The attorney general actually made no accusation that Wilson had done anything illegal. And, there was no charge that Wilson had done something to favor those special-interest groups who gave him, by Van de Kamp’s count, 134 separate checks ranging from $500 to $2,500. But Van de Kamp noted that a corruption-weary public is in the mood for some political scalps these days.

“It seems to me he (Wilson) would be showing that he is basically living in the 1990s by taking another look at what he is doing and saying it is wrong,” Van de Kamp said.

The attorney general noted that in federal court here, state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) is standing trial on charges that he extorted honorariums and campaign contributions in exchange for favorable action on legislation. “Honorarium is a sham, a classic example of political double talk,” Van de Kamp said. “Rarely has a more honorable sounding word been used to describe a more dishonorable practice.”

The attorney general takes no honorariums; Wilson has reported accepting $200,038.32 in his seven years in the U.S. Senate, from 1982 through 1988. For the year 1983, Wilson reported receiving $72,500 in honorariums ($3,000 was later returned), slightly more than his Senate salary, which was $69,800 at the time. Unlike campaign contributions, honorariums are like personal income and can be spent as such.

Van de Kamp delighted in pointing out that at least two savings and loan companies were among those paying Wilson. Savings and loans, of course, are a troubled industry and Congress has found itself having to approve a multibillion-dollar bailout.

Van de Kamp also relished the fact that Wilson’s last reported honorarium was $2,000 from TCS Enterprises Inc. of San Diego. A part owner of this financial holding company is the bankrupt Lincoln Savings & Loan, Van de Kamp noted. He also noted that Wilson recently returned about $16,000 in campaign contributions from the embattled chairman of Lincoln, Charles Keating.

In a controversial ethics ballot initiative, which the attorney general is circulating for signatures, Van de Kamp is seeking to outlaw honorariums for state officeholders. Feinstein called early for the very same thing. She had a policy as mayor of refusing honorariums, but was on the paid speech-making circuit once she left office. In the Senate, Wilson opposed efforts to tighten restrictions on honorariums.

Gifts to politicians arose as a related controversy in Thursday’s campaign back-and-forth. Van de Kamp told reporters that he had taken “very, very few gifts.” And he described those which he took as in the nature of a $35-to-$40 gift basket from the Police Protective League.

Wilson, though, said this was misleading. “Van de Kamp has received thousands of dollars in gifts from economic interests while he has been in office,” the senator said.

Among the gifts Van de Kamp has taken included the use of a flat in London for eight days, which he valued at $800. Wilson said this is probably undervalued, given the cost of hotels in London.

Van de Kamp also has taken gifts in the form of lodging at other vacation locales, including Carmel and Sun Valley. In 1988-89, the value of all gifts reported by Van de Kamp was $4,400, according to Wilson.

“It proves anew that Mr. Van de Kamp talks a great game but until he discovered ethics in an election year, he hadn’t lifted a finger on it all the years he’s been in office.”