Proposition 73 and Bill Press

In response to “Campaign Law Trifled, Giving Pundit an Edge,” by Ronald B. Turovsky, Op-Ed Page, Jan. 16:

Like many of us, I watch Bill Press give his political commentary on KABC television and I hear him on the radio. I understand that Press is exploring the statewide race for the new insurance commissioner post.

Press does nothing wrong, I believe, by remaining on the air until he becomes an official candidate.

Bear in mind, I am not endorsing Press for insurance commissioner. I will not be endorsing any California Democrat, except my daughter Kathleen Brown in the state treasurer’s race, until the June primary is over.

But I feel obligated to speak out now against people who accuse Press of exploiting campaign reform law.

I support ethical campaigning, of course. However, I think Press’ attackers are wrong in their claims he fails to follow the letter and spirit of state law. In my opinion, Press has a clear right to continue his broadcast duties while exploring political candidacy.

You don’t need a great legal mind to understand this. Under state law, Press at this minute is an exploratory--not an official--candidate. In fact, there aren’t any official candidates for insurance commissioner, or any other statewide office, for that matter.

Let me explain. To qualify for the June primary, a candidate cannot file his or her declaration of intent to run until Jan. 29. Then, between Feb. 12 and March 9, when people file their formal declarations of candidacy, then and only then do they become official candidates.

What Prop. 73 did, and a good thing, too, was to require citizens to specify the one race they plan to explore by raising money, taking polls, seeking endorsements, etc. In compelling exploratory candidates to stake out a race, the initiative stops people from shoving money from one race to another as opportunities shift and political winds blow. It does not require any citizen to quit his or her job while exploring a race.

One group of people must quit their jobs upon becoming official--i.e., no longer exploratory--candidates. These people are the on-air broadcasters.

Even if on-air broadcasting has provided the primary income for the candidate’s family, that money stops as soon as the candidate becomes official. He or she must run with no income. You could say that to some degree, this disadvantage is balanced by the name-recognition and public exposure the broadcaster enjoyed--for a while.

(You can argue that holders of elected office and political appointed positions should also give up their jobs upon becoming official candidates. But this, of course, is a separate issue.)

Why is Press being badgered to get off the air? Press should not be asked to give up his constitutional rights--perhaps the highest of which is to consider running for elected office--simply because he’s heard and seen on radio and TV.

Finally, let’s consider the argument that Press is grabbing a free ride by airing his views as a commentator. Perhaps the proponents of this argument are hoping that nobody has ever heard Press.

I can tell you that he takes some extremely risky political positions--a number of times every day. He was in the pro-choice camp, for example, early on. He is a continuing and outspoken opponent of offshore oil drilling. Recently, he opposed our invasion of Panama. The other day, he renewed his opposition to the death penalty.

No one can say with a straight face that Press enhances his candidacy with all these positions. In fact, he risks his political career with them, and everybody knows it.

EDMUND G. (PAT) BROWN

Governor of California, 1959-1967

Los Angeles