CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 131 : Term-Limit Foes Say Klan Could Get State Funds

Trying to stir up fears of the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, opponents of two term-limit initiatives have begun airing a television ad that claims the Klan could qualify for state tax dollars under one of the measures, Proposition 131.

The ad features a politician talking to an audience garbed in white hoods and robes. “We raise $30,000, and the taxpayers give us seventy-five grand,” the politician says, laughing at the prospect.

Supporters of Proposition 131, which includes partial public funding for state political campaigns, contend that the ad is “irresponsible and preposterous” and that it fails to disclose fully its chief financial backers--two campaign committees controlled by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

What’s more, the commercial is almost identical to a campaign ad produced two years ago by the same political consultants, Michael Berman and Carl D’Agostino, in their unsuccessful campaign to defeat an initiative that, like Proposition 131, attempted to create a tax-supported fund to help pay for legislative races.

“Using the KKK is a scare tactic,” said Jim Wheaton, director of the Yes on 131 campaign. “It is revolting that they would use this imagery of the most hated group in the country and tar their opponents with that brush.”

The initiative would create a taxpayer-supported fund for qualified candidates in state races. The first $250 of each individual’s contribution would qualify a candidate for up to $750 in state money.

To be eligible for state funds, a candidate for Assembly would first have to raise $30,000 in contributions of $1,000 or less. That would be impossible for most fringe candidates, Wheaton said.

Opponents note that extremist presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche was able to qualify for almost $2 million in federal funds between 1980 and 1988 while seeking the Democratic party presidential nomination.

“Public financing of campaigns serves to legitimize voices that don’t have any place in the political process now, at least not in California,” said Jay Ziegler, spokesman for the No on 131 and 140 campaign.

However, Wheaton argued that no extremist candidate in California has ever raised enough money on his own to qualify for state funds under the Proposition 131 proposal.

He added that “Lyndon LaRouche is now in federal prison for what he did to raise money (for his campaigns).”

Berman and D’Agostino also began airing a commercial that attacks Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, the author of a second term-limit measure, Proposition 140. The television ad holds Schabarum responsible for smog and traffic gridlock in Los Angeles and claims that the true purpose of the initiative is “more power for special interests and greedy developers.”

Schabarum shrugged off the commercial as an eleventh-hour campaign ploy by desperate opponents of term limits.

“They’re trying to refocus the problem addressed by (Proposition) 140, which is the inadequacy of the Legislature,” said Schabarum, whose initiative would limit Assembly members to six years and state senators and most other state elected officials to eight years. The measure would slash the Legislature’s operating budget by as much as half and eliminate the legislators’ retirement system.

Schabarum did not dispute that he has favored development, saying, “I used to be a real estate developer.” His ballot measure committee has received strong support from Southern California developers.

But he also pointed out that in 1971, as a state assemblyman, he chaired the key committee that approved the creation of the state Air Resources Board as well as local smog-control districts. In his 18 years as supervisor, he said he has done more to advance alternative transportation than any other local government official.