CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / PROPOSITIONS 131 and 140 : Brown, Roberti Draw Fire Over Commercial

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp accused legislative leaders Willie Brown and David A. Roberti on Tuesday of “hiding behind Angela Lansbury’s skirts” because a political ad that features the actress does not disclose Brown’s and Roberti’s backing.

Van de Kamp said the ad opposing Propositions 131 and 140, the term-limit measures on the Nov. 6 ballot, appears to violate the state’s Truth-in-Initiative law that requires campaign advertisements to identify their major financial backers.

He said the ad only discloses that it is paid for by the “No on 131 and 140 Campaign” and does not reveal that financial support for that campaign is being provided by incumbent legislators and political committees organized by Assembly Speaker Brown (D-San Francisco) Senate President Pro Tem Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

“They should stop hiding behind Angela Lansbury’s skirts and come out in the sunshine where people can see them,” Van de Kamp said. “That television ad released by the opponents of Propositions 131 and 140 is both inaccurate and illegal. . . . In short it is just what people have come to expect from politicians in Sacramento.”

Van de Kamp said he understood that some broadcasters have already decided not to air the ad and threatened to seek “court relief and treble damages” against any stations that don’t follow suit.

Van de Kamp’s comments were immediately denounced by representatives of the No on 131 and 140 Campaign and the California Assn. of Broadcasters, both of whom accused the attorney general of attempting to stifle free speech.

Vic Biondi, the association’s executive, said it is the broadcaster’s role to inform the public and not to enforce disclosure laws.

“They’re using us to fight a campaign and to get the other side to do what they want, and we object to being dragged into this,” said Biondi. “If there is a problem I think they should go after the source and not shoot the messenger.”

Proposition 131, which Van de Kamp helped write, would limit legislators to 12 consecutive years in each house and limit most statewide officials to eight years in office. It also would limit campaign contributions and enact a system for taxpayer financing of campaigns.

Proposition 140 would limit Assembly members to six years in office, and limit senators and statewide officials to eight years in office. It also would eliminate the Legislature’s pension program and cut the Legislature’s operating budget by about 50%.

Citing a loophole in state disclosure laws, Jay Ziegler, a spokesman for the No on 131 and 140 Campaign, said the ads against the two ballot measures do not have to contain full disclosure as along as they don’t devote a majority of their content to one initiative.

But Van de Kamp said his belief that the ad is illegal was based on an analysis that concluded that one initiative got more attention than the other, thus not qualifying for the exemption. He said most of the ad refers to Proposition 131 and its provisions for public financing and only five words to Proposition 140.

The No on 131 and 140 Campaign is the second big-moneyed group to take advantage of that loophole in the disclosure laws. Last week the alcoholic beverage industry used the loophole to avoid disclosing its backing of ads featuring actor Tony Randall. The ads oppose Proposition 134, which substantially increases taxes on beer, wine and liquor, and support Proposition 126, which only modestly increases those taxes.

“We are in full compliance with all disclosure requirements of the law,” said Ziegler. “We are very cautious and we requested an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission (the state’s political watchdog agency) well in advance of our television advertising.”

He said television stations throughout the state appear to “have agreed with our interpretation.” He said none have refused to run the ad.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGN The ballot measures: Propositions 131 and 140. Proposition 131 would limit the terms of state legislators and officers, limit campaign contributions and create a system for public financing of campaigns. Proposition 140 would limit terms, eliminate the Legislature’s pension program and cut the Legislature’s operating budget by about 50%.

Whose ad: Yes on 131--The Clean Government Initiative. Cost: About $9,000 to produce. Supporters are seeking free air time on stations that run ads opposing Proposition 131. Producer: Zimmerman, Fiman & Dixon.

Elements of the ad with analysis by Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub: Ad: “Everyone knows why California needs a law to stop the politicians from turning public service into a lifetime career.” As the announcer says this, pictures of convicted former lawmakers Joseph Montoya and Paul Carpenter flash on the screen along with a description of their crimes.

Analysis: Neither Carpenter nor Montoya served long enough in any office to have been affected by Proposition 131’s 12-year limit on terms.

Ad: “So who’s against Prop 131? You guessed it, the most powerful career politicians.” Pictures of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson of La Habra flash on the screen.

Analysis: Brown has been in the Assembly since 1964 and has been Speaker since 1980. He is credited with building a huge power base and is thought to be capable of winning passage in his house of any bill he favors and blocking passage of any bill he opposes. Johnson, in office since 1978, is considerably less powerful than Brown.

Ad: “So who’s for Prop 131? You and me and everybody who’s fed up with politics as usual.”

Analysis: Supporters of Proposition 131 include California Common Cause, the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, Voter Revolt and consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

Whose ad: Californians for a Citizen Government--Yes on 140. Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, the chief sponsor of the initiative, addresses the camera. Cost: Less than $5,000 to produce. Sponsors are seeking free air time from stations that run ad opposing Proposition 140. Producer: TVC Productions.

Ad: “Seventy-two percent of Californians believe the Legislature is corrupt.”

Analysis: Percentage comes from a poll by Moore Information Services of Portland, Ore. A survey by The Los Angeles Times Poll late last year found that 53% of voters thought “taking bribes is a relatively common practice” among Sacramento lawmakers.

Ad: “140 limits their terms, ends their lavish pensions and cuts their huge staffs.”

Analysis: Besides term limits, the measure would eliminate the Legislature’s pension program, which now allows lawmakers to retire at any age after 20 years of service and receive up to 67% of their highest salary. The Legislature’s operating budget would drop from $219 million to $114 million.

Ad: “Proposition 140 doesn’t use your tax dollars for their campaigns.”

Analysis: This line is meant to draw a distinction between Proposition 140 and Proposition 131, which would limit terms and provide public financing of political campaigns. But it might lead some voters to believe that passage of Proposition 140 would stop tax dollars from going into campaigns, which isn’t true.

Whose Ad: No on 131 and 140, funded by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). The ad features actress Angela Lansbury on the set of a television show. Cost: Unknown, although opponents of the two measures are expected to spend as much as $4 million to defeat them. Producer: Berman & D’Agostino.

Ad: “These so-called reforms are written by politicians.”

Analysis: Proposition 131 was written by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp as part of his unsuccessful campaign for governor. Proposition 140 was written by Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, who has been in public office for 25 years.

Ad: “If 131 and 140 pass, special-interest groups and developers will amass even more power. . . .”

Analysis: Opponents of term limits argue that the inexperienced legislators who would replace today’s incumbents would be dependent on lobbyists for information about complex subjects. But advocates of term limits say the Legislature is already beholden to special interests. And they point out that special interests--including labor unions, business groups and corporations--are providing the lion’s share of the funding for the anti-term-limits campaign.

Ad: “Millions of your tax dollars go to politicians’ campaigns.”

Analysis: Proposition 140 has nothing to do with financing campaigns. Proposition 131 would create a system under which $5 million a year would go from the state’s general fund to match private campaign contributions and an estimated $12 million would be raised by taxpayers earmarking a portion of their taxes to a campaign finance fund.