CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGN

The campaign: Proposition 128. Whose ad? An industry-backed opposition group that calls itself “No on 128, the Hayden Initiative.”

Opponents of Proposition 128--an environmental initiative that its sponsors have dubbed “Big Green”--have begun running two radio commercials attacking the proposition on a wide range of issues. Both ads will air throughout the state until early September.

Elements of the ads, with analysis by Times staff writer Richard C. Paddock.

Ad No. 1: This commercial features four people reading a newspaper and talking about the initiative. At one point, a woman says, “Hey, call it what it really is: The Hayden Initiative. You know, Tom Hayden.”

Analysis: Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) is one of seven original proponents of the measure, along with Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly (D-Sacramento) and representatives of the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Campaign California and the National Toxics Campaign. In an attempt to highlight the role of Hayden--a onetime anti-Vietnam War radical and former husband of actress Jane Fonda--the opponents have officially named their committee, “No on 128, the Hayden Initiative.”

Ad: The conversation continues with a man saying, “It just tries to do too much: global warming, the ozone layer, air quality, water quality, water supply, offshore drilling, toxic waste, food production, logging.” A woman adds, “Not to mention creating a new bureaucracy to enforce it all.”

Analysis: The wide-ranging proposition calls for action to address each of those environmental issues, including banning cancer-causing chemicals in food, reducing emissions that damage the ozone and contribute to global warming, preserving old-growth redwood forests and taxing oil companies to pay for the cleanup of potential offshore oil spills. It also would create the elected post of state environmental advocate. With an initial budget of $750,000, the advocate would be able to create a limited staff to enforce the proposition and other environmental laws.

Ad No. 2: This commercial, relying solely on an announcer’s voice, repeats some of the same themes of the first ad. The announcer then says, “And there’s a price tag on every provision. Nearly $3 billion a year, according to the state legislative analyst’s first estimate. Since then, other experts have raised that to over $6 billion.”

Analysis: Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill has estimated that implementation of the initiative would cost state and local government $116 million a year, including $26 million annually to pay off a bond measure aimed at preserving old-growth redwood trees. In addition, she said, there would be one-time costs of $49 million. Hill also said the measure could mean a potential loss in state revenues from offshore oil drilling because the proposition would write into law the current state policy prohibiting new oil drilling in coastal waters. She said the size of the revenue loss is unknown but could be up to $2 billion.

In an earlier report, Hill said the loss of oil revenues potentially totaled more than $2 billion. The ad cites this preliminary report--not the revised analysis and its reduced estimate that will be printed in voters’ ballot pamphlets. The experts cited by the ad who put the cost at $6 billion were hired by the opponents of Proposition 128 to prepare their estimates.

Ad: The announcer says, “How do we pay for it all? Good question. There’s no answer in the initiative--128 doesn’t provide funding for most of its expensive new laws. That means you and I will end up footing the bill.”

Analysis: Many of the provisions of Proposition 128 would be paid for out of the general fund. But the largest spending program, a $500-million oil-spill prevention fund, would be paid for by new fees on oil companies. Like other bond measures, the $300 million in bonds for redwoods would be paid back with interest over a 20-year period out of the state’s general fund.