CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / BALLOT MEASURES : Politicians Shunned in Initiatives’ Final Pitch

In a last-minute spurt of advertising that tries to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with elected officials, backers of a wide range of ballot measures aimed their election eve campaigning against entrenched politicians.

In the campaign consultants’ view of the world, scientists are credible to voters. So are consumer advocates, celebrities and newspaper editorial writers. But political figures have no credibility at all.

National figures, including former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and consumer activist Ralph Nader, a variety of television and movie stars, and numerous scientists and physicians, have become the principal spokespersons on different sides during this season of ballot measures.

In recent days, for example, Nader stepped into California politics with a five-minute television ad supporting Proposition 128, the environmentalists’ sweeping “Big Green” initiative that would, among other provisions, ban cancer-causing pesticides.

In an unusual linkup, Nader used the same commercial to promote Proposition 131, an initiative that would limit the terms of all state elected officials and provide partial public financing for political campaigns.

Nader declared that it wasn’t enough to vote for an environmental measure, the public must also change the character of the government that would implement it.

“Together, Proposition 131 and Proposition 128 are a prescription for cleaner government and a cleaner environment,” Nader said. “It’s OK to be fed up, but let’s not give up on Nov. 6.”

In the closing days of the campaign, opponents of Proposition 128 have relied most heavily on Koop, hoping his record of independence as President Reagan’s top public health officer gives him an aura of credibility.

Most recently the opposition campaign, financed largely by oil and chemical companies, used Koop to counter a highly emotional ad in favor of “Big Green.” The commercial features two cancer victims, actress Tracy Nelson and 4-year-old Colette Chuda, who urge voters to approve the measure and rid the state of cancer-causing chemicals.

But Koop, in a videotaped answer, argues that the initiative would not protect the public from cancer.

“The ad, which exploits a tragically sick child, is only designed to play upon the fears of California voters,” Koop said. “And the implication that with one vote Californians can stop cancer is arrogant, dangerous and irresponsible.”

In recent days, supporters of Proposition 128 and another environmental initiative, Proposition 130, launched a get-out-the-vote drive aimed at more than 75,000 sympathetic voters who otherwise might not cast ballots--about 1% of the total vote.

Organizers--including the Nader-affiliated United States Public Interest Research Group and Democratic Party organizer Marshall Ganz--said the voter drive could be significant if either of the initiative contests is close. Proposition 130 would protect California forests by banning clear-cutting and reducing timber harvests.

In making a pitch to voters to support another initiative, Proposition 135, its supporters argue that their initiative “is based on science--not politics.” The measure is the agriculture industry’s counter to Proposition 128 and would wipe out its ban on cancer-causing pesticides. It would also give a tax break to farmers.

In a full-page newspaper ad Monday, proponents of Proposition 135 try to link “Big Green” to elected officials. “Politicians often look for the emotional quick fix that in practice can cause much more damage than good,” the ad says. In the past they have zeroed in on Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), one of three elected officials who helped draft “Big Green,” along with such groups as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In another contest, backers of the “nickel-a-drink” initiative, Proposition 134, have tried to defeat the alcoholic beverage industry’s alternative measure, Proposition 126, by linking it with politicians. In a radio ad, “nickel-a-drink” proponents play on the fact that their initiative spells out where the money will be spent so “the politicians don’t get their grimy hands on it.” In contrast, the ad charges, Proposition 126, a smaller tax increase placed on the ballot by the Legislature, lets “the politicians decide who gets the money.”

A number of polls have shown that politicians generally have little credibility with voters, but that consumer and environmental groups are influential. A recent California Poll reaffirmed consumer activist Nader’s high standing with voters--with 45% of those polled saying that Nader’s endorsement of an initiative would influence their vote.

Nader was credited two years ago with helping persuade voters to adopt the insurance reform initiative, Proposition 103, and reject three other insurance initiatives sponsored by special interest groups such as insurance companies and trial lawyers.

In contrast, polls have shown that Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) gets a generally unfavorable reaction among voters.

As a result, Brown has avoided getting visibly involved in campaigns to defeat the two term-limit initiatives on the ballot, Propositions 131 and 140, although he has raised more than $2 million to defeat them. “Every fiber of his being wants to go out and attack this thing,” said a fellow Democrat, “but he’s had to restrain himself.”