Navarro Takes Off Gloves in Ad Campaign : Politics: Mayoral candidate infuriates Golding, his foe, by linking her to Richard Silberman, her convicted ex-husband.

Firing a long-expected rhetorical salvo, San Diego mayoral candidate Peter Navarro has begun airing television and radio advertisements that attack his rival Susan Golding by referring to her former marriage to imprisoned felon Richard Silberman.

“Silberman committed a crime. Golding is committed to politics as usual,” concludes one Navarro TV ad that accuses Golding of having lobbied for legislation and business deals intended to benefit her former husband and his associates.

Similarly, another Navarro radio commercial makes disparaging references to a number of Golding campaign aides, linking them to Watergate, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and J. David Dominelli, the convicted former head of the now-defunct, fraudulent La Jolla investment firm that bore his name.

“And finally, Golding’s now ex-husband, Dick Silberman, is in jail for laundering drug money through a company in which they were both major stockholders,” the ad states. “ . . .Are these the people you want running San Diego?”

Navarro’s latest strategic tack infuriated Golding, who charged Tuesday that her opponent had “sunk to a level lower than anybody I can ever remember in a mayoral campaign.”

“Everybody knows what he’s doing--it’s just another Navarro lie,” Golding said. “He’s running the dirtiest campaign I’ve ever seen in this town.”

In defending both the content and the negative tone of the ads, Navarro portrayed them as, in part, a response to the caustic “attacks and distortions” on his record and character contained in Golding’s own campaign commercials.

Noting that Golding has twice been sued for slander and libel by past opponents, Navarro also dismissed her protests as hypocritical “howling” from a candidate who has “done far worse” in this campaign and her earlier races for the San Diego City Council and county Board of Supervisors.

The lawsuit filed by Golding’s 1984 opponent, lawyer Lynn Schenk, was settled in Schenk’s favor, but in such a way that both sides could claim victory. Schenk this year is the Democratic nominee in the 49th Congressional District race. Golding won the earlier lawsuit, stemming from her 1981 council race.

“For Susan Golding to say that politics has been lowered to the basest level in history is ridiculous,” Navarro said. “She, in her malicious slander action (in the 1984 county supervisorial race) set a new standard for negative campaigning.”

Navarro also argued--disingenuously, from Golding’s perspective--that his intent was not simply to smear her through her link to Silberman. Rather, he contended that the ads’ primary message is that Golding “is a person with a pattern of taking money from people and then doing favors for them.”

Tuesday’s showdown had been long expected, because Golding’s former marriage to Silberman was widely viewed within political circles as her major potential liability from the outset of the mayoral campaign.

Early in 1991, nearly a year before the campaign began in earnest, a top adviser to San Diego City Councilman Ron Roberts, who was eliminated from the mayoral race by his third-place primary finish last June, summarized how he saw Silberman fitting into the contest’s overall strategy.

“Susan Golding is walking around with a big bull’s-eye on her back, and Dick Silberman is in the center of it,” the former Roberts aide said. “Sooner or later, someone is bound to squeeze off a shot. It’s just too tempting a target.”

Before Navarro’s new round of ads, Golding’s opponents have relied primarily on oblique references to the Silberman controversy.

Roberts, for example, ran an anti-crime ad last year in which he said that one of his top priorities would be to rid the streets of money launderers--a claim that produced knowing chuckles among political insiders. And Navarro’s habit of pointedly introducing or at least referring to his wife at campaign forums was seen by many as a subtle reminder of the sensitive subject.

However, there is nothing subtle or indirect about Navarro’s newest ads, each of which mentions Silberman by name and refers to his 1990 conviction on felony charges related to a money-laundering scheme. Although Silberman believed that the $300,000 involved came from Colombian drug traffickers, the funds in fact were part of an FBI sting operation passed along to him by undercover agents posing as narcotics dealers.

Explaining his decision to inject Silberman into the campaign, Navarro argued that Golding has used the personal sensitivity surrounding the issue as “a shield” to discourage inquiries by her opponents or the press into certain political or legislative activities that she undertook “in conjunction” with her former husband. Golding, who was married to Silberman at the time of his arrest and conviction, later divorced him.

“Her reaction . . . is to somehow portray herself as a victim of a man that she didn’t know what he was doing,” Navarro said. “We agree with that. That’s fine. We agree that we’re not going to hold her responsible for Mr. Silberman’s drug-money laundering.”

In response, Golding snapped: “Then why does he start his TV ad talking about what Dick did?”

Navarro’s 30-second TV ad features unflattering photos of Golding and Silberman, torn apart in the center. The accompanying text states: “Supervisor Susan Golding’s husband, Dick Silberman, went to jail for laundering drug money. Golding isn’t responsible for his actions. But she is responsible for hers. Like taking $243,000 from Silberman for a campaign. And then lobbying for tax breaks that benefited his foreign clients and giving a lucrative contract to his associate. Silberman committed a crime. Golding is committed to politics as usual. Don’t yield to politics as usual.”

That ad, Golding charged, is “a smear . . . based on factual errors.” Her objections include:

* References to the $243,000 donated to her 1984 supervisorial campaign. That money was not a direct contribution from Silberman, Golding contends, but rather came from community property she was entitled to after the couple married during the campaign.

“She’s splitting the finest of hairs,” Navarro responded.

* The “lucrative contract” for a Silberman associate, which refers to the county’s hiring of a man named Jerry Zanelli as a Sacramento lobbyist. Over the past three years, Zanelli was paid $95,000 by the county, according to figures provided by Navarro.

In a letter sent to Golding Tuesday, County Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen explained that he had recommended that the board hire Zanelli based on his familiarity with Zanelli’s earlier work in Sacramento.

Even if that explanation is accepted, Navarro said, it does not invalidate what his ad says about the episode.

* Claims that she lobbied for tax breaks benefiting Silberman’s clients, a reference to California’s unitary tax system.

Under that system, overhauled in 1986 after intense lobbying by large multinational firms, international companies once paid state taxes based on their worldwide income, not simply the business that they conducted in California.

During 1985 and 1986, years when Silberman reported receiving at least $30,000 from two business-backed groups fighting for repeal of the tax, Golding repeatedly took strong stands against the unitary tax in her role as a supervisor, records show.

Among other activities, Golding wrote a letter to her board colleagues encouraging them to take a stand in favor of repealing the tax, and also sponsored the 1985 creation of the county’s International Trade Commission, which took a stand against the tax.

However, when the board formally urged “reform” of the controversial tax in March, 1985, and May, 1986, Golding abstained from the votes. Those abstentions are the basis for Golding’s assertion that she “never lobbied anyone on behalf of Dick’s clients.”

Navarro, though, argues that, her abstentions notwithstanding, her earlier activities clearly constituted lobbying.

Golding lodged similar complaints about the facts and the context in which they are presented in Navarro’s radio ad. The narrator in that ad, which begins with the sound of a gavel pounding a desk, tells listeners: “In court, evidence is presented and judges make decisions based on the facts. In elections, voters like you and I must be the judges. . . . So here’s a few facts to consider about Supervisor Susan Golding.”

The ad proceeds to charge that Golding has taken “over $400,000 from developers and other special interests”--a figure that Golding contends is an exaggeration.

For months, Golding and Navarro have argued over how much developers have contributed to her campaign, with their estimates varying according to how broadly or narrowly they define developer-related businesses. The $400,000 figure may, in fact, overstate the amount of development-related money that Golding has received. A newspaper’s estimate that about 40% of her donations have come from developers would put the number closer to $300,000.

However, the wording in Navarro’s ad--”developers and other special interests”--appears to give him enough semantic maneuvering room to defend the ad’s accuracy.

Embarrassing background details about some of Golding’s current or former campaign aides also are outlined in the ad, including the links to Watergate, Noriega and Dominelli.

Calling those specifics “misleading,” Golding campaign manager Dan McAllister also argued that “the personal histories of campaign contractors is not relevant to the mayoral campaign.”

Golding also took issue with the ad’s contention that Silberman’s legal problems stemmed from his efforts to launder funds through a company in which both he and Golding were “major stockholders.” The firm, Yuba Natural Resources, was a separate holding by Silberman in which she had no stock or other financial interest, Golding said.

Although Yuba appears on some of Golding’s financial disclosure statements, Navarro agreed Tuesday to investigate her claim about being uninvolved with the company. If her version proves accurate, Navarro said, he will alter the ad.

“This isn’t a he said--she said kind of story,” Navarro concluded. “There’s a clear record. There’s a clear pattern there. And it’s not a pretty picture.”