CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / U.S. SENATE : Seymour’s Challengers Oppose Federal Riot Aid : Politics: Senator would exclude those convicted of disturbance-related crimes from assistance. Dannemeyer and Allen joined in the three-way debate.

Sen. John Seymour (R-Calif.) said Sunday that he will work in the Senate to see that “not one penny” of federal aid goes to anyone convicted of looting or arson in the Los Angeles riots.

But unlike his two opponents for the Republican nomination for the two-year Senate seat, Seymour supports the aid bill.

Seymour made the comment during a half-hour debate, shown statewide on public television, with his two major opponents: Rep. William E. Dannemeyer of Fullerton and U. S. Civil Rights Commissioner Bill Allen of Claremont.

Dannemeyer and Allen said they oppose the federal aid bill, and Dannemeyer accused Seymour of being as big a spender as Sen. Alan Cranston, the California Democrat who is retiring.

“We thought we were getting rid of Alan Cranston,” Dannemeyer said. “I’m sorry to say” that Cranston will be on the June 2 Republican primary ballot in the form of Seymour.

Seymour retorted: “Bill, you’re as outrageous as ever. You continue going around California distorting my record.” He added: “I’m a lot more tightfisted than you are, Bill,” saying that he had introduced legislation to reduce spending by more than $13 billion.

Seymour was appointed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson in January, 1991, to fill the vacancy created when Wilson resigned from the Senate to become governor. This year’s election will fill the final two years of the term Wilson won in 1988.

The senator said he will vote for the riot aid bill, but added that he will seek an amendment to deny any aid to people convicted of riot-related crimes. That would include Small Business Administration loans for rebuilding businesses or unemployment benefits for those thrown out of work by the destruction.

Meeting with reporters after the debate at San Diego station KPBS, on the campus of San Diego State University, Seymour said: “I can’t believe that either Mr. Dannemeyer or Mr. Allen would deny a Small Business Administration loan to somebody that got their business looted or burned to the ground. That is totally unreasonable.”

At that point, San Diego State student Deborah Katz tried to interject a comment about the need for more state aid to avert campus class and staff cuts. She is one of 15 students taking part in a round-the-clock campus protest of educational cuts. The students came to the debate to brief reporters.

“Now you’d better be a good girl,” Seymour told the 20-year-old junior, a sociology major from Long Island, N. Y.

“A good what? “ Katz said.

“A good girl,” Seymour said.

“Pardon you , gentleman,” Katz said, with a tinge of sarcasm in her voice.

“OK, a good woman,” Seymour said.

As Seymour left, he told the young woman that if he were still in state government, he would be involved in the issue, but did not say what he would do. As a U.S. senator, he said, he can do nothing.

As the debate got under way, the protesters gathered at the entrance to the telecommunications building housing the station. The doorway was blocked by two campus police cars and the officers guarded the door until the debaters left.

The half-hour session, moderated by Peter Kaye, an associate editor of the San Diego Union-Tribune, was the first of three planned for the final three weekends of the primary campaign. Thirteen California stations planned to air the debate Sunday night.

Next Sunday’s session is to involve Democratic candidates for the seat held by Seymour. Democrats Gray Davis and Joseph M. Alioto have said they will appear, but front-runner Dianne Feinstein has not, station officials said.

Republican candidates to succeed Cranston are scheduled to debate the next week. The meeting of Democratic candidates had been planned for May 3, but was canceled because two of the three declined to participate.

In Sunday’s session, Seymour, Allen and Dannemeyer, who have participated in six appearances since January, delivered mostly routine campaign answers to the four questions dealing with riot aid, the Rodney G. King trial verdicts, abortion and aid to the republics of the former Soviet Union.

On riot aid, Kaye asked Dannemeyer how he would have voted if he had not been absent for the vote.

“I would have voted for the taxpayers,” meaning against the aid bill, he said. He added that it is time to stop piling on more federal debt.

Allen said that “as an American black” he does not take lightly the question of how the nation should respond to the riots and its victims. But to continue bailing out areas after any disaster, he said, “is a way leading to disaster . . . (to) continue with disaster with that bailout bill.”

On the King verdicts, Dannemeyer said he is concerned that the four Los Angeles police officers might be charged with violating federal civil rights laws. “I have great confidence in the idea of double jeopardy,” Dannemeyer said. “I would be very much concerned if they seek to try those officers who were acquitted.”

The U.S. Constitution protects people from being tried more than once on the same charge stemming from the same crime. However, any federal charge would be different from the state charges of which a jury found the officers not guilty.