Term Limit Measures Find Special Interests as Foes : Government: Groups that supposedly would benefit from Props. 131, 140 are backing efforts to defeat them.

California’s trial lawyers enjoy having one of their own as Speaker of the Assembly.

The state’s school teachers fear that an “amateur-night Legislature” would harm their interests.

Orange County’s Irvine Co. objects to shaking up the political system arbitrarily with unpredictable results.

Each has its reasons, but these three special interests and dozens more are contributing heavily to defeat Propositions 131 and 140, which would slap limits on the terms of California legislators and statewide officeholders.

The opponents of term limits contend that special interest groups would dominate California politics if the measures pass. But many of the very interests who are supposed to benefit do not seem to agree. They are putting their money--$3.3 million so far--squarely behind the status quo through campaign committees run by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

Tobacco companies, racehorse track owners, lottery contractors, oil companies--almost anyone with a stake in issues decided in Sacramento--would like to keep the Legislature the way it is. Those connected with these interests say they have spent years building rapport with the present members and do not want to start again from scratch.

“If you had a Legislature going through a turnstile, by the time you got someone to even understand how the system works, they’re gone,” said Will Glennon, a spokesman for the California Trial Lawyers Assn. “That’s frightening to us.”

However, the television ads opposing the initiatives assert that if both measures pass it would mean that “special interest groups and developers will amass even more power.”

The opposition campaign argues that Proposition 131’s proposal for a system of partial funding of state election campaigns would allow the very same “special interests to expand their influence in the Capitol”--citing as examples, bankers, lawyers, real estate interests and members of professional associations. These opponents also contend that Proposition 140’s slashing of the Legislature’s operating budget would “emasculate the Legislature and increase the influence of special interests.”

Supporters of the two measures are asking why the special interests that supposedly would benefit from them are backing efforts to defeat the initiatives.

“Every unsavory special interest is lining up with Willie Brown,” said Yes on 131 campaign director Jim Wheaton. “The list is as long as a nightmare. . . . Everyone with a stake in keeping the rules the same in Sacramento is giving.”

In contrast to the contributions received by the term limit opponents, the campaigns supporting these measures have collected relatively little from groups that traditionally have a major stake in the decisions of state government.

The Proposition 131 campaign has received about $200,000, the largest single contribution coming from Common Cause, the public interest lobbying group. Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, one of the authors of Proposition 140, has raised about $1.3 million for his measure, much of it from individuals and businesses in Los Angeles County that have supported his reelection efforts over the years. His measure also has received roughly $200,000 from a national tax limitation group.

Schabarum contends that he has been largely unsuccessful in getting support from statewide special interests because they like the system the way it is. His measure would limit officeholders to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the state Senate.

Schabarum said one potential contributor he called for a donation compared the Legislature to a maitre d’ at a fancy restaurant. He said the donor told him:

“Every time I go into that restaurant, I tip that guy a little bit to get a good table. Now why do I want to support your proposition . . . when I have been tipping those folks routinely and regularly every year? Now if we have this turnover that’s contemplated, I’m going to have to start tipping all over again.”

Many of the businesses opposing the term limit measures say that their position is based on concern for the future of representative government, and not their self-interest.

“We are just concerned that the consequences (of term limits) will be to drive some people with tremendous knowledge and experience out of public service and that’s just a heavy price to pay,” said Larry Thomas, vice president of corporate communications for Irvine Co. “I can precisely predict what the outcome will be: It will clearly shake up the existing system, the existing framework, and I don’t think that makes sense.”

The company has long played a quiet but important role in shaping state policy on such issues as housing and transportation and stands to benefit from the Legislature’s recent approval of a gasoline tax increase to pay for new highways.

Although the company has regularly contributed to Schabarum’s campaign committees in the past, it has parted company with him on the term limit measure, donating $20,000 to the No on 131 and 140 campaign.

The California Teachers Assn. is the single largest contributor to the opposition committees with donations totaling $204,000 through Monday.

The group is close to Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and supported him in his unsuccessful attempt to win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the June primary. But when he asked the teachers to back Proposition 131, they refused, said Ralph J. Flynn, executive director of the union, which represents 220,000 teachers throughout the state.

Flynn acknowledged that the teachers were close to Brown and Roberti, who have a track record of support for school funding. “The reality is the legislative process for all of its infirmities is really the best thing that we have going for us,” Flynn said. “And the most responsive part of it, frankly, is the elected leadership. . . . If we get what we consider an amateur-night Legislature, which is what we think we’ll have with a rapid turnover, it’s not going to be in our interests.”

Glennon of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. said that attorneys fear that a remade Legislature would be dominated by the medical, insurance and manufacturing interest groups that have tried to make it harder for victims to collect damages in court. The association has given $20,000 to the anti-term limit effort and individual firms have contributed a combined total of more than $80,000.

Proposition 140, the severest of the two term limit ballot measures, would force all current members out of the Assembly in six years, including Speaker Brown, himself a trial lawyer.

“Obviously, it’s a great advantage to have someone who is a champion of your cause as Speaker of the Assembly,” Glennon said. “It’s been much easier for us to get a good hearing, to explain what the issues really are. If the Speaker were a doctor who was convinced that the tort system was his greatest nightmare, we would have a harder time convincing his members that it was not.”

While the special interests are generally fighting the term limit measures, Jay Ziegler, a spokesman for the No on 131 and 140 campaign, points out that the initiatives would not have qualified for the ballot without the support of special interest groups. Proposition 131 was placed on the ballot with substantial contributions from Van de Kamp’s campaign committee, as part of his run for governor. Schabarum tapped into his own campaign treasury to qualify Proposition 131.

“These two initiatives did not just fall out of the sky overnight,” Ziegler said.

OPPOSING PROPS. 131 AND 140

A number of companies and professional associations have made substantial contributions to the committees opposing Propositions 131 and 140, the term limit measures on Tuesday’s ballot. Through the fund-raising efforts of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), the committees collected $3.3 million through Monday, according to records on file in the secretary of state’s office. * Donor: California Teachers Assn.

Amount: $204,000

Interest in legislation: Assembly Democrats led the effort to defend Proposition 98, which guarantees schools about 40% of the state budget every year. Gov. George Deukmejian wanted to suspend the law and give education programs less than their guaranteed amount.

* Donor: Horse racing industry

Amount: $136,500

Interest in legislation: Legislature has created and expanded the satellite wagering system allowing bettors to gamble on out-of-town races as they watch the contests on closed-circuit television.

* Donor: Tobacco industry

Amount: $111,000

Interest in legislation: Industry has opposed efforts to spend cigarette tax revenue on television ads discouraging smoking. Industry also is seeking to preempt local government attempts to regulate smoking.

* Donor: Trial lawyers

Amount: $103,700

Interest in legislation: Assembly Speaker Brown has consistently supported efforts by trial lawyers to block creation of no-fault auto insurance, and to protect the right to sue against efforts by insurance companies, doctors and manufacturers to erode it.

* Donor: Alcohol industry

Amount: $56,000

Interest in legislation: Legislature put alcohol industry measure on the ballot to fight Proposition 134, the “nickel-a-drink” alcohol tax initiative.

* Donor: California Medical Assn., Cooperative of American Physicians

Amount: $35,000

Interest in legislation: Groups support requiring employers to provide health insurance to workers. They have sought changes in medical malpractice law making it harder to sue doctors.

* Donor: Film industry

Amount: $21,000

Interest in legislation: State Senate proposal to end a film industry exemption from the state sales tax was killed after Assembly refused to go along.

* Donor: Surety insurance companies

Amount: $20,000

Interest in legislation: Industry sponsored bill to exempt surety companies--which bond the performance of contractors and other businesses--from regulations in Proposition 103, the voter-approved insurance initiative.

* Donor: Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric

Amount: $20,000

Interest in legislation: The companies are seeking state approval for a controversial merger.

* Donor: Irvine Co.

Amount: $20,000

Interest in legislation: Supported legislation to increase gasoline tax to pay for construction of new roads. Won legislative approval for Orange County toll roads that will make it easier for the company to develop its land.

* Donor: Alamo Rent-a-Car

Amount: $10,000

Interest in legislation: The company has fought to eliminate airport access fees for off-premises car rental companies. Sponsored bill that would have allowed Alamo to advertise rental rates that did not include the fee to take people from airport terminals to their lots.