CAMPAIGN JOURNAL : Term Limits Not Popular Topic for Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein is the candidate of “change.” It says so in her television ads. She says so in almost every speech. That is her main message.

And it is true that as the race for governor speeds toward a Nov. 6 climax, Feinstein increasingly has been talking about changes she would make in such areas as education, crime and health care.

For example, while campaigning before labor groups last week she repeatedly promised to sign a bill providing health insurance for California’s 5 million uninsured workers “within 100 days” of taking office.

But there is one “change” voters seem to be demanding that she cannot promise--in fact, one she does not even care to talk about very much. That is a major shake-up of the political system in Sacramento, starting with term limits for legislators. She does not believe in term limits, the candidate will say if pressed, because they weaken a Legislature by destroying the opportunity to develop experienced leaders.

“It’s like throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” she said during a press conference in Montebello last Tuesday. “If people don’t like an incumbent, they should vote against that incumbent.”

Feinstein’s stand seemingly is at odds with most voters who, according to recent polls, favor two ballot propositions that would limit the terms of officeholders. Just as significant, Feinstein has been resisting the broader temptation to “run against Sacramento,” a fat political target with its revealing FBI investigation, recent corruption convictions and incessant legislative gridlock.

Feinstein, a close ally of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), is being careful not to alienate the legislators she hopes to deal with as governor. Aggressively attacking “Sacramento” and “special interests”--words regarded by most lawmakers as euphemisms for themselves--would risk “creating an atmosphere where they would go out of their way to see that I’d not be a successful governor,” she said in an interview. “I’d like to create an atmosphere that addresses issues and where everybody is willing to work together.”

History shows that although beating up on Sacramento may be popular with voters, there inevitably is a price to pay for gubernatorial candidates who do it. “That’s a mild understatement,” said former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., who pushed for political reform and enraged legislators when he ran for governor in 1974, the first post-Watergate election.

“Even to this date, it kind of sticks in their craw,” Brown said of his first campaign. “There are a couple of senators who haven’t spoken to me since. That was something not well received.”

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp paid the price literally earlier this year for proposing Proposition 131--a government ethics initiative with term limits--and vowing to “drain the swamp” of political corruption in Sacramento. Angry legislative leaders used their leverage over bills to dry up Van de Kamp’s campaign contributions from special interests, particularly trial lawyers who had supported him.

“We thought we had commitments (from trial lawyers) but they (legislators) shut off the funds,” said one former Van de Kamp adviser, who asked not to be identified. “They found a way to get to us and it cost us well into seven figures.”

This fall, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Sen. Pete Wilson, is joining Feinstein in opposing Proposition 131. But his opposition is not based on term limits. He is opposed because the measure also would allow tax dollars to be used to help finance political campaigns. Wilson has not taken a position on the more stringent term limit measure, Proposition 140, sponsored by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

Taking whacks at the Legislature could gain the gubernatorial candidates a lot of points with voters, The Los Angeles Times Poll indicated in its most recent statewide survey. Voters disapproved of the Legislature’s job performance by 2 to 1. They also had a basically unfavorable impression of Speaker Brown. And they overwhelmingly backed the term limit initiatives, especially Schabarum’s.

But as with Feinstein, Wilson’s criticism of Sacramento has been relatively mild, confined primarily to denouncing the “arrogance” of Democratic leaders for “gerrymandering” legislative districts and assailing liberals for burying crime bills.

“He hasn’t gone out of his way to say, ‘We have to clean up the mess in Sacramento,’ ” said Wilson’s press secretary, Bill Livingston. “He’s not saying, ‘Throw the bums out.’ ”

Feinstein’s gentle scoldings of Sacramento have been aimed basically at the lame-duck Republican governor, George Deukmejian. There is gridlock in the capitol, she says, because of inertia in the governor’s office.

That is not to say the Legislature is faultless, let alone ethically pure, the former San Francisco mayor will acknowledge if asked.

“That body has to come to grips with its own rules,” she said. “That’s the whole essence of ethics reform and I think it’s beginning to happen. There have been some big and painful lessons learned. And with a new governor, there is an opportunity to set a new tone up there and that’s what I hope to do.”