Not the Prime-Time Payers : Campaigns: The cost of TV exposure in Los Angeles is making it tough for statewide candidates to get their messages into the No. 1 market.

It’s hard to imagine a successful statewide candidacy that did not include television advertising in the major markets. But the rising costs of TV time, especially in the Los Angeles market, are rapidly becoming prohibitive for most candidates seeking statewide office.

Mindful of this, Democratic Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy recently proposed that he and the winner of the Republican primary for lieutenant governor split the costs of their 30-second TV spots, each contributing up to $500,000. Sens. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) and John Seymour (R-Anaheim), who are seeking the nomination, spurned McCarthy’s unprecedented idea. But McCarthy’s concern about high-priced TV time in California and its implications for political campaigns and debate deserves bipartisan attention.

Conventional wisdom has it that only the nominees for governor--Pete Wilson on the Republican side, either Dianne Feinstein or John Van de Kamp on the Democratic--will be rich enough to afford frequently aired TV ads in major markets. If one of these candidates wanted maximum prime-time exposure in the Los Angeles market today--viewers seeing a 30-second ad at least 10 times--he or she would have to pay $830,000 a week. That price, it should be noted, will continue to escalate through the spring.

Yet prime-time exposure is not the most cost-efficent. Bill Carrick and Hank Morris, Feinstein’s media advisers, spent $450,000 to buy time in six non-prime periods in the Los Angeles market. The Feinstein ads began airing in late January when she was a virtual unknown here. The spots, of course, propelled Feinstein into the lead, the polls show, and may even have changed the chemistry of the race. Today, Carrick and Morris would have to pay $750,000 for the same result.

Candidates for insurance commissioner or treasurer clearly won’t be able to raise that kind of money. A possible solution is for TV station managers, out of public service, to incorporate candidate debates into their late-afternoon news programs or schedule them between 7 and 8 p.m., prime access time.

Short of that, underfunded candidates will have few opportunities to get across their message on TV: They can either buy only in Los Angeles, or buy everywhere but Los Angeles.

News that Democratic registration in California has slipped below 50% the first time in 56 years may turn out to be a harbinger of worse to come unless the party can attract more money. It’s not that chairman Jerry Brown isn’t out raising money. It’s that his staff overhead--15 registration organizers are on the payroll--is eating up all the receipts.

The combination of party-recruitment costs and lackluster results may be why Brown did not renew the party’s $7,500 monthly contract with organizer Marshall Ganz. Neither side is talking.

In any case, Brown must raise $1 million a month to finance his aggressive efforts to reverse the party’s registration decline. Already, Feinstein and Van de Kamp are under pressure to divert funds from their shrinking war chests to aid the registration drive. Not surprisingly, the candidates are balking. Which means that Brown may have to ask Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti for some of the money they have amassed to defeat pro-Republican reapportionment efforts.

Failure to meet the party’s cash goals in the next six weeks, say informed sources, could mean additional staff cutbacks, which could translate into still fewer registered Democrats. For Jerry Brown, that would be a major setback.