CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGNS

The ballot measures: Propositions 118 and 119. Whose ads? Supporters of Propositions 118 and 119 and one group opposing both measures.

Propositions 118 and 119 both seek to change the way the state draws new political district lines after the U.S. census, an act that can determine the balance of power in the Legislature and the state’s delegation to Congress.

The supporters of Proposition 118 have begun airing a commercial ignoring the redistricting issue and focusing instead on another portion of the measure dealing with legislative ethics. The Proposition 119 campaign and the united effort to defeat both measures are carrying on something of a televised duel.

The following is a text of portions of the ads and an analysis by Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub: From the ad in favor of Proposition 118: “It’s in the news everyday. Some politician somewhere trades public interest for special interest. You stop it with Proposition 118. Stop gifts that corrupt.”

Analysis: The measure seeks to ban gifts and honorariums from individuals or groups that employ lobbyists in Sacramento. But since the initiative amends current law, which only prohibits gifts and honorariums received in connection with a speech or article on a subject related to the governmental process, it apparently would not close the loophole that allows legislators to take money from special interests as long as it is not “in connection to the governmental process.”

Ad: “. . . Close conflict of interest loopholes.”

Analysis: The measure makes minor amendments to a law that already prohibits legislators from voting on any measure in which they have a “personal interest.” Neither the current law nor the proposed measure defines “personal interest.” That task is left to the Legislative Ethics Committee.

From an ad in favor of Proposition 119: This ad features Charlton Heston responding to an earlier ad in which Jack Lemmon urged voters to reject both initiatives: “Jack Lemmon, get honest. You and Willie Brown--fooling the voters again. Last time the Fresno Bee said you ‘conned’ the voters. The Examiner said it was ‘an insult to California.’ ”

Analysis: These lines are referring to the fight over a similar measure in 1984, after which Assembly Speaker Brown joked that his side had won by using an advertising campaign he described as a “con job.”

Ad: “Oil, chemical and hazardous waste dumpers paid for your fraudulent commercial. It’s a hoax.”

Analysis: The campaign against the two measures depends to some degree on corporate sources but has collected thousands of dollars from Democratic incumbents and political action committees run by organized labor and trial lawyers. The campaigns in favor of both initiatives and against both measures are funded in part by contributions from corporations and politicians. The two initiatives depended on corporate and political money to get on the ballot.

Ad: “Each time I see your ad, I’ll remember the League of Women Voters (says) you’re wrong.”

Analysis: The league helped write Proposition 119 and is one of its chief sponsors. The measure is opposed by, among others, the Sierra Club, California Common Cause and the National Organization for Women.

From an ad opposed to both 118 and 119: The ad features actor James Garner: “Now that the world is waking up to the environmental threat, corporate polluters and politicians are spending millions to turn back the clock.”

Analysis: This is a reference to the fact that the Republican Party and corporations such as Chevron and Unocal helped put the two measures on the ballot and are helping to fund their campaigns. To a lesser extent, the campaign against the two initiatives has received money from similar sources.

Ad: “It’s a power grab that could let big business exploit our oceans, trees and few remaining wilderness areas.”

Analysis: Both measures probably would result in more Republican legislators, at least in the short run, who have traditionally been less friendly than Democrats to environmental issues. But the campaign against the two initiatives says that the measures would result in fewer coastal districts and therefore weaker representation for ocean concerns. Nothing in either initiative would prevent the line-drawers from creating as many coastal districts as there are today.