CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGN

The race: Governor. Whose ad?: Dianne Feinstein.

Democratic nominee Feinstein on Thursday began running an advertisement attacking Republican Pete Wilson for accepting almost $250,000 in campaign donations from the savings and loan industry. The ad also scores Wilson for several votes he took on bills pertaining to the industry’s federal bailout and investigations of related scandals.

Elements of the ad, with analysis by Times political writer Cathleen Decker:

Ad: The commercial opens with the turning pages of a book. Superimposed atop a picture of a pile of money are five “S and L facts,” as characterized by Feinstein. “Savings and loan executives gave Pete Wilson $243,000--more than any other member of Congress,” it says. “S&Ls; paid Pete Wilson $9,000 in honoraria.”

Analysis: Feinstein’s statement is based on a study by Common Cause, which released a report in June listing Wilson as the No. 1 recipient in Congress of political contributions from the S&L; industry.

While the numbers are correct, Wilson argues that the report does not take into account the number of election cycles represented in the years of the study, beginning in 1981. He has run two election campaigns in that time, while other senators cited, such as California’s Alan Cranston, ran only one.

The report also does not take into account the heavy costs associated with campaigning in California, and does not count the so-called “soft” money that savings and loan executives gave to other senators, Wilson charges.

Ad: “Pete Wilson voted against adding inspectors to protect us from savings and loan fraud.”

Analysis: The ad refers to Wilson’s April votes against Senate motions to transfer money from a Panamanian aid account to the FBI and U.S. attorney appropriations. Wilson was among 50 senators, most of them Republicans, who opposed the move. Opponents, including Wilson, argued that the government had already appropriated $107 million for S&L; fraud investigations and that no more money was necessary this fiscal year.

The ad also implies that Wilson took the position because he had received money from the industry. In fact, Wilson voted against the industry’s favored legislation when the Senate acted on the bailout.

Ad: “Pete Wilson voted to hide the S&L; bailout, costing taxpayers an extra $4.5 billion.”

Analysis: The reference is to a vote, again largely along party lines, on whether to put the savings and loan bailout “on” the federal budget or “off” the budget. Proponents argued that the bailout should be on the budget books because not doing so would be dishonest, according to a Senate vote analysis. The winning opponents, including Wilson, were following the wishes of the Bush Administration and said they feared a presidential veto if the matter had been placed on the budget.

According to Feinstein’s campaign manager, Bill Carrick, interest on the off-budget item ran close to 0.6% higher than it would have had the item been on the budget. Hence the “extra $4.5 billion.”

Despite the ad’s contention, the S&L; bailout has hardly been hidden. The scandal-ridden industry has dominated network television and newspapers for a year. Indeed, the issue has become such an emotional one that candidates are vying to wield it politically--most recently, Feinstein.