NEWS ANALYSIS : Van de Kamp Most on Spot as Governor Race Heats Up

John K. Van de Kamp was hot. Now he’s gone cold.

Some thought Dianne Feinstein was washed up. Now, she’s giving ‘em hell.

And Pete Wilson? He showed it is possible to raise lots more money than excitement on the road to Sacramento.

With the chemistry of the 1990 California governor’s race profoundly unstable after a fitful year of preliminaries, the three candidates--two Democrats and a Republican--face each other today, in public for the first time. They will appear before the annual convention of the California Newspaper Publisher’s Assn. in Coronado.

The tension, the interest and the stakes in the campaign all heighten as the calendar winds down toward the final 100 days before the June primary.

Van de Kamp, California’s attorney general, is the candidate most on the spot.

Just recently, his anxious hope to clear Feinstein from the field in the Democratic primary was dashed. Worse, his front-runner status in the polls was torn from his hands. And precious financial resources are being blocked from reaching him by Democratic leaders of the Legislature, insulted by his proposal to limit terms of office for state politicians.

“These events test your faith, of course they do,” acknowledged Richard Ross, campaign manager for Van de Kamp and architect of his strategy.

But Ross and the other campaign brain trusters said they are unwavering in their belief that Van de Kamp is well positioned on three compelling issues of the campaign--the environment, political ethics and crime. They argue that his novel linking of himself with a trio of ballot initiatives has staying power to survive the vicissitudes of daily events.

“We are confident about the strategic and thematic position John is in,” says his pollster, Paul Maslin. “He was out front on cleaning up the environment--then there is an oil spill. He was way out front on the issue of ethics--then there is a major corruption conviction in Sacramento, proof of this sick system he is talking about.”

Along the way, however, Van de Kamp did not anticipate the intensity of one fight. This is not his fight with Feinstein but with the Legislature. His proposed ballot proposition on “ethics” would limit state officials to two terms and state legislators to 12 years in office, among other things. This has incited fury among some assemblyman and senators. Capital sources said at least three important lawmakers have retaliated by trying to shut off the flow of campaign funds to Van de Kamp.

They are Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), sources said. Van de Kamp campaign officials estimate that they have lost $500,000 or more in contributions as a result, mostly from trial attorneys who used to support his campaigns without hesitation. The money would be enough to enlarge his treasury nearly 20%.

“This is reverse ‘influence peddling,’ ” complained one angry Van de Kamp campaign official. “This proves what John has been saying all along--Sacramento is controlled by special interests acting for themselves.”

Nonsense, Lockyer replied. “Creating artificial turnover in the Legislature is one way to assure greater special interest contributions.

“I admit--I am proud to admit--I am out trying to discourage contributors from giving to him,” Lockyer said. In particular, he is seeking out representatives of attorney groups. “I am not telling them not to contribute. But I am telling them that if they show up in significant ways on Van de Kamp’s contributor lists, they should not expect to have pleasant conversations with people like Willie Brown and David Roberti.”

Brown this week endorsed Feinstein, and sources said Roberti is likely to follow suit soon.

For her part in the campaign, Feinstein has never ridden so high.

Van de Kamp’s Democratic primary rival, she considers herself the unconventional contender in the race--a woman, an outsider, never part of the old boys’ network, proudly aloof from the Democratic Party Establishment.

But in recent weeks, she followed the most conventional of all modern political strategies to boost her standing at just the right time to catch fire.

How? She made herself an introductory, to-know-me-is-to-like-me television commercial, and bought herself $600,000 or so of air time--carefully chosen to bracket news shows and reach target audiences of viewers with a high likelihood of voting.

The commercial and a statewide barnstorm “announcement” tour seemed timed to influence the late-winter public opinion sampling conducted by Mervin Field’s California Poll in February.

They did.

Lagging behind Van de Kamp 35% to 53% in October, she changed the numbers this month to 42%-38% in her favor, more or less a statistical tie.

“I am not irrelevant,” Feinstein said with understatement and a beaming grin at a Sacramento press conference.

Such early advertising strategies have proved effective previously in California politics, at least in short-run gains, although such an enormous swing in polls surprised the odds makers.

In the case of Feinstein, it also has helped in some important early campaign goals: It quieted doubters, perhaps even doubts in her own heart, about her fortitude to see the long campaign through. As well, it established her as a credible force and seemed to show that she could make fast inroads into unfamiliar Southern California. And she, in turn, may find it easier to raise money, which has been slow coming to date.

“We were really suffering, couldn’t even get a lot of folks to take our phone calls. But with the ad, Dianne’s announcement swing and the California Poll, we’re suddenly seeing a difference,” said campaign consultant William Carrick

Feinstein’s early TV strategy also blew a hole in Van de Kamp’s hope that with a series of almost daily news conferences--on gun control, forestry, oil spills and so on--he could generate enough news to keep voters interested and prevent a huge Feinstein gain. About all his campaign could offer was how much worse it might have been if Van de Kamp had been quiet during the several weeks the commercial has been running.

Most professionals, however, say that beyond these conclusions, not much of a lasting nature can be drawn from any poll at this time.

“We make too much of them. Yes, they are interesting. They give us something to think about. A candidate may find he’s bumped his toe, or that her new message is reaching home. But there isn’t much you can draw from them as to the eventual winner,” said I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll.

Indeed, polls have fluctuated in this race earlier. Last spring and summer Feinstein was marginally ahead in the Field Poll and enjoyed the role as the celebrity candidate. A strong and determined fall and early winter by Van de Kamp reversed this, and he became the front-runner in both the Field Poll and The Los Angeles Times Poll. (The Times has not conducted a poll on the race this year.)

“Neither one has worn the crown of the front-runner very well,” observed political consultant Kam Kuwata, who is not aligned with either.

Meanwhile, on the GOP sidelines, Republican Wilson continues to follow the strategy that worked so easily and well in his nine-point 1988 reelection to the U.S. Senate: Raise lots of money and very little Cain.

Thus far, Wilson seems satisfied with a campaign of three parts: Hammering the well-tested issue of crime, tapping the good will he has built among select voter constituencies, and preparing for a huge television advertising campaign--the kind of controlled, mistake-avoidance politics that is sure to test the resources, if not the creativity, of opposing candidates.

The $8.2 million Wilson has raised so far is nearly twice that of Van de Kamp’s $4.3 million, and four times Feinstein’s $2 million. Wilson is expected to reach $20 million or more before November. The Democrats have the added burden of having to spend every cent in the primary and start all over again, fund-raising frantically.

Wilson’s strategy, however, does not account for much in the way of goose bumps.

During his official candidacy “announcement” fly-around of California this week, crowds were embarrassingly small and lethargic. At a rally at a Bakersfield car show room, some locals preferred to sit in the adjacent customer lounge and watch television. In Santa Barbara, only six people were on hand to hear him speak, about as many as might help a friend find a missing contact lens, and about as excited.

Some Republicans are beginning to squirm. Is he too cautious? After such an easy race in 1988, is he misjudging the potential of either Feinstein or Van de Kamp? What would he do if his opponent started generating electricity? Said one GOP consultant: “You can buy lots of TV. But you can’t buy charisma.”

Contributing to this account was Times political writer Keith Love