CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER : Garamendi Says Nader Wanted ‘Outrageous’ Terms for His Support

John Garamendi, the Democratic nominee for state insurance commissioner, accused consumer advocate Ralph Nader Thursday of threatening to withhold his support unless Garamendi “agreed precisely” with Nader on up to a dozen specific insurance issues.

Garamendi said he had told Nader at a face-to-face meeting in San Diego in late June that it was “outrageous to think that he or anybody else should be in a position to leverage any individual and I would not agree in advance to (commit to) any of his issues.”

Nader, in California this week, was unavailable for comment on Garamendi’s account of the meeting.

Nader, the nation’s best known consumer advocate, was largely credited with the passage of Proposition 103, the sweeping 1988 initiative intended to cut insurance premiums and strictly regulate the industry. His endorsement in the race for insurance commissioner could help either candidate.

During an appearance Wednesday night with Republican insurance commissioner nominee Wes Bannister at Cal State San Bernardino, Nader was the first to disclose that he had met with Garamendi. But he gave a different account of what was said.

Nader was sharply critical of Garamendi during the appearance Wednesday, charging that the Democrat has been unwilling to wage a substantive campaign or engage in many debates with Bannister.

Although he disagreed with Bannister, an insurance agent, on a large number of issues--including Bannister’s advocacy of no-fault insurance--Nader expressed the view that Bannister was waging a more honest campaign than Garamendi.

Garamendi is heavily favored over the poorly financed Bannister. But continued strife with Nader and Nader’s allies in the consumer movement could be a problem for Garamendi if he became the state’s first elected insurance commissioner.

Nader declined under questioning in San Bernardino to endorse either candidate, saying the decision should be left to “each citizen in the privacy of the voting booth.” But he said he was “very skeptical about anybody who avoids debate,” such as Garamendi.

Garamendi responded Thursday that he is debating Bannister on KCBS-TV this weekend, that the debate will be rebroadcast on other stations, and that at least three radio debates also are scheduled.

But Nader, recalling his June meeting with Garamendi, said he had asked him for a commitment to seek an end to certain exemptions for the insurance companies in terms of paying state and local taxes in California, and “I could not understand his answer.”

Nader added, however, that Garamendi committed to supporting an increase in the $250,000 cap on malpractice judgments, which was enacted in legislation that Garamendi authored.

Garamendi, asked about Nader’s criticisms, said he resents what he termed Nader’s attempt to “become the arbitrator of goodness.”

“Mr. Nader in our meeting demanded about a dozen specific requirements of me and said he would not support me unless I agreed to precisely what he wanted, and he wanted that agreement in advance of the election so he could leverage me if I won,” Garamendi said.

“I told him that was outrageous,” he said. “I told him I’d take his views into consideration and act in the best interest of California consumers when I was elected.”

Another person who was present at the meeting, Robert Fellmeth, director of the Center for Public Interest Law, said in an interview Thursday that he did not think Garamendi’s description of his exchange with Nader was very accurate.

“What Ralph was saying was, ‘You’ve got to take stands,’ ” Fellmeth said. “What is outrageous is candidates running for political office who think it’s outrageous when someone asks them to take specific policy positions.”

During the primary campaign for insurance commissioner, Garamendi was accused by Nader and some of his consumer allies of leaning toward insurance company positions.