Feinstein, Van de Kamp Go All Out : Debate: They spar over ethics, taxes and who is better able to lead California into the future. The clash on TV is a first.

John K. Van de Kamp dished it out and Dianne Feinstein hurled it back Sunday night as the two Democratic candidates for governor faced each other in a rambunctious, high-stakes debate about their differences and the destiny of California.

Never before have two candidates for governor of the same party debated on statewide television just before a primary election--and they went all out for the trust of voters in a political party that is steadily losing ground.

In a word--their word--the Democratic primary now 23 days away is a contest of change, and which candidate can bring it about. The encounter also brought some sharp charges over taxes, ethics--and a cheerful “Happy Mother’s Day” from both.

Van de Kamp hit hardest when he said that Feinstein’s reluctance to address taxes directly and her willingness to cut social spending for the needy made her sound more like a Republican.

“She’s sounding like Gov. Deukmejian; this is a Democratic primary,” Atty. Gen. Van de Kamp said.

“You can’t change California, Dianne, by going along with the status quo, getting along with the status quo, getting endorsed by the status quo. . . . Take a stand,” he said.

For Feinstein, just being a woman--the first ever to seriously vie for her party’s nomination--was visible evidence of change.

“I think this state needs some caring. I think it’s not hurt by a little bit of mothering,” the former San Francisco mayor said.

“If you want to do things just as they’ve always been done, take the insider candidate,” shesaid, gesturing to Van de Kamp.

Feinstein, who is by reputation more telegenic, did not appear to run away with the debate as some of her supporters wanted, although she certainly held her own. Van de Kamp, a practiced lawyer, appeared well coached and repeatedly found a way to end his statements with a barbed question about Feinstein--a question she could not answer right away because it was not her turn.

Ethics in government and ethics in politics were points of sharp disagreement.

Feinstein said it would be a “breach of privacy” for her to reveal the private clients of her multimillionaire investment banker husband, Richard C. Blum. She noted, however, that Blum already has disclosed 76% of his business interests. She said that if elected she would subject herself to stringent conflict-of-interest standards.

Her husband’s income has loomed as an issue because Blum has loaned the Feinstein campaign half of its total budget so far.

“I think we’re entitled to know who’s behind Mayor Feinstein,” Van de Kamp said.

“And by the way, why no taxes in 1985?” he said tauntingly.

Feinstein waited her turn to answer and then said the lack of federal income taxes that year could be explained because she and her husband took a tax loss on an investment in ice cream parlors.

“You’ve been very sanctimonious, John,” said Feinstein, an edge to her voice. She accused Van de Kamp of trying to prevent revealing his family trust, charging that when it was revealed, there were 14 companies listed that did business with South Africa. “So if I were you, I wouldn’t be quite so sanctimonious,” she said.

California’s multibillion-dollar budget shortfall and taxes loomed early and important in the debate.

Van de Kamp was specific in suggesting higher taxes on people earning $100,000 or more. “We have to be willing to look at revenues,” he said. Van de Kamp said the tax cuts of the 1980s have to be revaluated for these high-income earners “and put them at the rate they had before.”

The attorney general said it was “wrong” to consider cutbacks for the poor.

Feinstein seemed to disagree. Asked specifically about cutting programs for the aged, blind and disabled, she said whe would call legislative leaders together “and put everything on the table . . . and try to negotiate a package.”

About taxes, Feinstein was asked about Gov. George Deukmejian’s pledge to resist new taxes. “I don’t think that’s necessarily right,” she said. But she did not get more specific. In fact, she said that if current budget estimates are accurate, she would be faced with having to cut $1.3 billion next year.

Several early questions were devoted to the touchy subject of race relations, a subject more often in the background of the day-to-day campaign.

Feinstein reacted strongly, saying that whites cannot expect to rule a state that is increasingly diverse and increasingly minority: “One thing we cannot become in California is an apartheid society.”

Van de Kamp was faced with the inevitable questions about his support for abortion in spite of his Catholic religion. He delivered a strong defense of his ability to separate his personal religious views from his political philosophy.

“I frankly am very concerned when people start using my religion against me,” he said. “. . . She is implying that because I’m a Catholic I cannot truly be pro-choice.”

Feinstien responded, “I have no problem with your being a Catholic. I have the greatest respect for that.” But she criticized the attorney general for representing the Legislature and governor in court battles when they sought to impose abortion restrictions.

Later, they returned to abortion again, in particular the question of abortions for purpose of sex selection.

At the risk of angering purists among abortion rights activists, Feinstein repeated a statement published in The Times on Sunday that such abortions would be a “misuse of the right to choose.”

“When you lead, you also set some values,” Feinstein added.

Van de Kamp said he found the statement shocking. He wondered if California would have “state inquisitors for checking with women” about their reasons for seeking an abortion. “Think about that.”

The candidates stood in front of gray podiums about 10 feet apart. Van de Kamp wore a plain blue suit, Feinstein chose a jacket in red, which is becoming her signature color. By their choice, there was no audience of supporters in the studio. The candidates requested that their answers be limited to a minute apiece with 30-second rebuttals.

Clearly, the debate was the most dramatic single hour of a long and sometimes lackluster campaign.

It came as polls continued to show Feinstein the leader, although by erratic margins. The Los Angeles Times Poll earlier in the month found her up by 13 points, but the California Poll by Mervin Field saw her ahead by a statistically insignificant 3 points.

By any measure, however, a decisive bloc of Democrats remained undecided going into these final days.

Both candidates are running about even with the man the winner will face in November--Republican Pete Wilson--who has no serious challenge for his party’s nomination. That is the good news. The bad news is that Democratic party registration is at a 56-year-low, although still ahead of the Republicans.

The format of the debate was designed to be more like that of a joint news conference than a wide-open exchange of views. There were no opening statements and questions came from a panel of Northern California journalists.

A second and concluding one-hour televised debate with a similar format is scheduled for next Sunday in Los Angeles at the unusual hour of 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on KCBS Channel 2.

Despite the never-before-seen nature of these pre-primary debates, the viewership was expected to be fairly small.

However, the impact of the debates will undoubtly grow as a result of extensive news coverage, and through re-hashing by the candidates themselves on the campaign trail. After all, these are among the few events of the campaign with the potential for something unexpected to occur.

For that reason, both candidates prepared exhaustively, with mock debates and hours of briefings, as if the June’s outcome rode on the results.

Highlights: Excerpts from debate. A20

Contributing to coverage of the gubernatorial debate were Times staff writers Cathleen Decker, George Skelton, Daniel M. Weintraub and Douglas P. Shuit in San Francisco and Patt Morrison and Kenneth Reich in Los Angeles.