Candidates in Governor Race Turn Up Heat : Campaign: Would-be successors to Gov. Deukmejian launch flurry of charges and countercharges. The election, months down the road, suddenly seems only a few desperate days away.

Is John K. Van de Kamp too cozy with defense attorneys to lead California in a real fight against crime? Will he be tarred for accepting campaign support from the defense attorney for the notorious Hillside Strangler sex murderer?

Is Dianne Feinstein beholden to insurance companies because her husband has a multimillion-dollar business connection to two big insurers?

Can Sen. Pete Wilson be dismissed as “something of a drugstore cowboy” on crime because he has never prosecuted a case in court?

Suddenly and unexpectedly on Tuesday, it was as if the election for governor was desperate days away, not months.

Two speeches, three press conferences, hectic rounds of telephone conversations--all in a highly charged mood--made the day one to remember, for better or worse, in the race for governor.

Perhaps it is easiest to follow if one starts at the beginning:

Van de Kamp, the state attorney general and Democratic front-runner, opened a regular meeting of the California District Attorneys Assn. at 9 a.m. at the Fisherman’s Wharf hotel. He gave a routine anti-crime speech and followed with a standard press conference.

A newspaper columnist started the sparks. Was it a good idea for Van de Kamp to attend a fund-raiser co-hosted by attorney Gerald Chaleff? It was noted that Chaleff had been the defense attorney for Hillside Strangler Angelo Bono in a case that haunts Van de Kamp. As district attorney of Los Angeles County, Van de Kamp declined to prosecute Bono for murder and the case had to be turned over to a different prosecutor.

Van de Kamp said years have passed since the Strangler case, and there was nothing wrong with accepting Chaleff’s support now. It was legal, for one thing. For another, Chaleff was merely a court-appointed attorney in the case, “doing a job.”

“If this becomes an argument of any substance, I really feel for the press in terms of grasping for straws of the smallest type,” said Van de Kamp.

According to the Van de Kamp campaign, Chaleff directly contributed only $130 over six years, and was co-host of two events at which an additional $14,275 was raised from others.

Contacted at his Santa Monica office, Chaleff greeted the issue with disbelief: “You mean because I gave $130, he dismisses the charges?”

Actually, no one even implied such a seemingly far-fetched notion. But reporters persisted with questions, perhaps because Van de Kamp’s campaign has been laying the groundwork in recent days for an assault on Feinstein over a matter of money and its effect on political motives.

Feinstein is the former mayor of San Francisco, and Van de Kamp’s Democratic challenger. Her husband, Richard Blum, is a successful investment manager and her chief financial backer, having given loans of approximately $1.3 million to her campaign so far. Recently, it was learned that among Blum’s clients are two insurance companies, Fireman’s Fund and First Executive Life.

“The issue here is you have a candidate being supported 90% by her husband. . . . Who is behind the husband? Who is he being financed by? That obviously has to spill over on the candidate,” Van de Kamp said.

The attorney general noted that Feinstein sided with insurance companies in the 1988 ballot initiative fight over auto insurance reform in California.

Feinstein, at home in San Francisco nursing the flu, gave a series of telephone interviews to rebut the attack. Yes, Blum earns a lucrative living investing money from clients, including two insurance companies. “But I’ve never been asked in 20 years to do something for an insurance company,” she said.

As for siding with the insurers in 1988, Feinstein said she believed then, and believes now, that no-fault auto insurance is the best reform for California. She also supports limits on lawyer fees and rate rollbacks.

Feinstein said that when she files papers to make her candidacy official later this spring she will divulge the complete list of Blum’s clients.

Then she joined the debate about Van de Kamp’s support from Chaleff. “I didn’t plant the question, but I echo it: I would question why John Van de Kamp would accept contributions from the attorney in the Hillside Strangler case.”

Meanwhile, Wilson, the Republican candidate in the race, arrived at the District Attorneys Assn. meeting with that most familiar of crime issues on his mind--the death penalty.

“I don’t think he’s given great leadership--he’s not a believer,” Wilson said about Van de Kamp and the death penalty. The attorney general, Wilson said, “is not missing in action in the fight against crime, because he has yet to join the battle.”

With fight still left in him, Van de Kamp insisted on yet another press conference.

“Sen. Wilson himself is something of a drugstore cowboy when you come right down to it on crime issues,” said Van de Kamp. “Sen. Wilson has never prosecuted a case; he has never sent anyone to Death Row.”

Elapsed time, 3 1/2 hours. The campaign then adjourned for lunch.