CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 165 : Both Sides Challenge Accuracy, Focus of Opponents’ TV Ads

Gov. Pete Wilson’s campaign to pass Proposition 165 has started its first round of television commercials with a focus on the one aspect of the initiative that California has already enacted: limiting welfare payments to out-of-state newcomers.

Opponents of the initiative have countered with a commercial that suggests Proposition 165 would empower the governor to establish the age at which children can start kindergarten--a determination that can be made only by the Legislature.

Three weeks before the November election, both sides in the debate over Proposition 165 are hitting the airwaves with emotionally charged ads that make dubious claims to sell their messages.

Both are using similar devices. Both sides, for example, run ads portraying people such as a disabled child or a frail-looking senior citizen making the case for or against the controversial initiative.

To those viewing the ads, a confusing picture is presented. The governor’s ads focus entirely on welfare, leaving the impression that the main thrust of Proposition 165 is an overhaul of the welfare system. His opponents’ commercials deal exclusively with budget issues, depicting the initiative as a measure that would only enhance the governor’s budget powers.

“You can see how the campaign is going to be fought--on a two-tier system, the pros on welfare and the antis on the budget,” said pollster Mervin Field.

The initiative covers both. It is a two-pronged proposal that would make substantial changes in the welfare system and shift some budget powers from the Legislature to the governor.

To promote their points of view, both sides intend to spend millions of dollars on media advertising--supporters at least $2 million and the opponents $1.5 million. With polls indicating that a substantial number of voters are still undecided, the ads are expected to be a key factor in determining the outcome.

Each campaign opened its advertising with three commercials that immediately drew criticism from the other side. Wilson accused his opponents of “incredible deception” for focusing only on the budget issue. “They don’t want to really debate the welfare reform provisions,” he said during a meeting this week with Times editors and writers.

The opposition campaign, a coalition of state employee unions, churches and public advocacy groups, insisted it is the Wilson ads that are avoiding issues. “He sort of skips over all those gubernatorial powers he wants to get for himself,” said Maureen Anderson, a spokeswoman for the No on 165 campaign.

Wilson has also objected strongly to the content of the opposition ads, in particular a commercial featuring a mother and young child. In the commercial the child, named Natti, plays in the foreground, while her mother explains that at one time doctors told her Natti might never walk or talk. Then words move across the screen, saying that Wilson wanted last summer to cut $60 million in services for disabled children like Natti. “If Proposition 165 passes, no one can stop him,” it says.

Wilson counters that any cuts in services could not have been made without first being approved by the Legislature. While the governor did propose reductions in health and welfare expenditures, he said they would have been confined to the delivery system, not the actual services.

“I understand the First Amendment doesn’t protect people in political office,” he said, “but (the No on 165 commercial) is just bogus.”

Anderson said the No on 165 campaign arrived at the $60-million figure by adding a series of reductions in a budget proposal Wilson submitted to the Legislature in May. She said the reductions ultimately approved by the Legislature were much less than those proposed by Wilson. The point of the ad, she said, was to show that if the initiative passes, Wilson will have new budget powers and would be able to make these kind of cuts unilaterally under certain circumstances.

The opposition also complains about the advertising on behalf of the measure. Sen. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who proposed a rival welfare plan that failed to pass the Legislature, says the Wilson commercials “mislead” viewers about the section of Proposition 165 that deals with welfare for newcomers.

The ads feature spot interviews with frustrated voters including one who complains that out-of-state “freeloaders” are pouring into California to get public assistance. The ad then promises that the initiative will stop the state from “being a welfare magnet.”

Thompson said the ad fails to explain that that proposal, shown in polls to be popular with voters, has already been adopted in California--passed by the Legislature and signed by Wilson last summer.

Amy Albright, press secretary for the campaign, said that to advertise the newcomer feature of Proposition 165 was not misleading because the law now on the books, though identical in its provisions, could run afoul of federal regulations. Because the federal government helps finance the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, it must approve many of the changes states want to make in welfare law. Albright said the Bush Administration has already approved all of the welfare provisions in Wilson’s ballot measure, but she said the recently passed law may not be given similar approval because it is not part of an overall package to revise the system.

Thompson said it is unlikely, however, that the Bush Administration would reject the new law when the President has assured the states that his Administration wants to encourage experimentation with the welfare program and will approve changes that do not require additional expenditures. If Bush loses the election, it is not clear what a new administration would do.

Albright also takes issue with an opposition ad that features a Parent-Teacher Assn. official complaining that Wilson attempted to keep 110,000 children from attending kindergarten this year, and adding, “We stopped him.” If Proposition 165 passes, the PTA official says, “Nobody will be able to stop him.”

“(Changing enrollment practices) requires legislation whether or not Proposition 165 passes,” said Albright. “And this isn’t a gray area or a question of misleading information. This (commercial) simply is a flat lie.”

Anderson acknowledged it would take legislative action to change the age children could attend kindergarten, which is what Wilson attempted to do this year at one point. But she argued--and Albright denied--that he could accomplish much the same thing if given the new powers contained in the initiative.