Chacon Pulls Out of Debate at Last Minute

Assemblyman Peter Chacon, facing perhaps his toughest reelection campaign in his 10-term career, backed out of a television debate with his two Democratic primary opponents shortly before the program was to be taped Saturday.

About 20 minutes before the scheduled taping of the 30-minute forum, a Chacon aide delivered a two-page press release to the KPBS-TV (Channel 15) studio in which the San Diego Democrat explained that he had decided not to participate because of what he described as the “campaign of distortion” of one of his challengers, former San Diego City Councilwoman Celia Ballesteros.

Chacon’s decision, his campaign manager said later, stemmed primarily from a sharply critical brochure that Ballesteros mailed to Democratic voters in the 79th District in which she caustically attacked the incumbent’s record and raised questions about his integrity. Titled “Ten Reasons Why Assemblyman Peter Chacon Has Embarrassed Us,” the mailer--sent to about 25,000 Democratic households Friday--recounts some of the ethical questions and controversial stands that have kept Chacon on the defensive in his campaign for an 11th two-year term.

“Ms. Ballesteros has chosen the road of political character assassination,” Chacon said in withdrawing from the forum. “I have no intention of providing Ballesteros a forum for her campaign of distortion that she could not provide for herself.”

Despite Chacon’s withdrawal, the KPBS forum proceeded as scheduled with the two other candidates in the June 5 Democratic primary--Ballesteros and newspaper editor John Warren. Moderator Gloria Penner announced Chacon’s last-minute withdrawal at the beginning of the program, and an empty chair remained on the set during the show.

Along with similar forums involving the candidates from the 44th Congressional District and 75th Assembly District, the program will be televised from 5 to 6:30 p.m. today and will be repeated at 6 p.m. on June 4.

Noting that Chacon has made no joint appearances with her during the campaign, Ballesteros characterized his refusal to appear on KPBS as “further evidence that he’s afraid to debate.”

“If he had any problems about the mailer or things that have been said, this was the place for him to personally raise them,” Ballesteros said after the taping. “But he didn’t do that because he knows he’s created these issues himself and he can’t defend them.”

Warren, referring to Chacon’s decision as “damage control,” expressed disappointment that the incumbent’s refusal to appear “limited the dialogue” but added that he is equally concerned that the growing animosity between Chacon and Ballesteros might overshadow substantive issues in the campaign.

“The bigger question here is not the battle between Pete and Celia; it’s the opportunity for the people of the 79th District,” said Warren, editor of Voice and Viewpoint, a black community newspaper.

Ballesteros campaign consultant Larry Remer was euphoric over Chacon’s decision, calling it an “incredibly stupid” strategic blunder that “shows that he’s ducking” debates. Indeed, Chacon’s withdrawal--in particular, its timing--drew more media attention to both Saturday’s forum and the Ballesteros mailer than either likely would have received otherwise.

But Sam Walton, Chacon’s campaign manager, said that he is not concerned that voters might interpret his action as reluctance to debate his opponents or defend his record. By issuing a press release, Chacon deliberately sought to focus attention on the incident and on his disdain for Ballesteros’ tactics, Walton said.

“At some point, you’ve got to take a stand against negative, mudslinging tactics like (Ballesteros) is using,” Walton said. “For him to go and sit in a public forum just so she could say, ‘You did this and that,’ when all that is a total mischaracterization anyway, does no one any good. It certainly doesn’t encourage voters to participate in the process.”

In his statement, Chacon argued that Ballesteros “does not want to participate in a true debate of . . . the issues of importance” to the district, which covers much of the central and southern portions of the city of San Diego and stretches from Coronado east to Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. As a result, Walton expressed doubt that Chacon would participate in any other debates during the campaign’s final two weeks.

The Ballesteros mailer that spawned Saturday’s contretemps detailed, among other things, investigations into Chacon’s acceptance of honorariums, his anti-abortion position and the fact that he spends far less time in San Diego than he does in his home in Placerville, near Sacramento.

The honorarium in question involves $7,500 that Chacon received from a check cashers’ organization in 1988 after he abandoned legislation opposed by the group. Though the state attorney general’s office concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge Chacon with a bribe--he insists he dropped the bill at the request of a key committee chairman, not because of the payments--his critics argue that the incident at least raises serious ethical questions.

“If they caught him once, how many times did he do it and get away with it?” the Ballesteros brochure says in its acerbic summary of that episode. Similarly blistering comments on other issues appear throughout the 16-page mailer, including ones that accuse Chacon of lying to a women’s groups about his opposition to abortion, that describe him as “a danger to the environment” and that claim: “When the special interests call, Peter Chacon comes running.”

Accusing Ballesteros of “relying on gutter tactics,” Chacon aide Walton said he hopes voters view her brochure as proof that she “has no idea what she’d do in the Assembly.”

“She hasn’t identified one problem in the district or one thing she’d do to solve it,” Walton said. “All she’s done is criticize, usually by distorting the facts. Why should Pete waste his time debating someone like that?”