Politicians Stuck on Horns of Term Limit Dilemma : Prop. 164: State delegation doesn’t want to seem self-serving by opposing it, but worries about losing clout.

Such is the public mood this year that members of Congress could swear the sun rises in the East--and some voters would not believe them.

Thus the effort to assemble a campaign against Proposition 164, the California federal term limits initiative, has put some members of Congress in a sort of lose-lose bind: Although some may support nationwide term limits, virtually all are convinced that being the only state to impose term limits would be like committing political suicide while the other states cheered.

Here’s what is at stake: three influential committee chairmanships held by Californians--Science, Space and Technology, along with Budget and Interior--with other California House members waiting to take key leadership posts as they rise in seniority.

And, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, some incumbents are firmly convinced that an incumbent is hardly the most credible messenger of that warning. It can sound self-serving for a congressman to argue about the harm Proposition 164 could do to the state. Someone is bound to retort: “Yeah, it’s bad for 45 Californians in particular--all of them in the House of Representatives.”

The measure would limit members of the House to three two-year terms and senators to two six-year terms. It is not retroactive, nor is it a lifetime ban, because candidates can conduct write-in campaigns.

Here is Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), the state’s ranking Republican, and Congress’ GOP conference chairman, who supports a national constitutional amendment on term limits but does not believe that California should unilaterally adopt federal term limits:

“I’ve been of the view that members are the least effective people to go out there and represent this concern.”

Here is Don Edwards (D-San Jose), dean of the state’s congressional Democrats, who has given $10,000 of his own money to oppose the initiative:

“This really is not a term-limit issue. It is an emasculation, a shooting in the foot of ourselves in California. . . . It would make us a foolish, helpless giant.”

Some form of congressional term limits appears on ballots in a dozen other states. Colorado passed such a measure in 1990.

It is so awkward to argue against the angry groundswell of voter support for Proposition 164--and run for reelection at the same time--that although several members have contributed money to fight it, others have apparently been threatened if they oppose it publicly, have pointed fingers at one another and have scrambled to distance themselves from taking a starring role against the initiative. At least four incumbents say they support Proposition 164.

“In this year of volatility, you have to be very cautious about taking risky positions,” said Paul Sweet, who until August directed the Washington office for the University of California system. He now volunteers his time to work against Proposition 164.

At the same time, an unusual array of California business people, unions, teachers, law enforcement and public interest groups have linked arms to oppose the initiative: the California Manufacturers Assn., Farm Bureau, Federation of Labor, Common Cause, Business Roundtable, American Jewish Congress, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, Teachers Assn., Tax Reform Assn., Sierra Club and League of Women Voters.

The very breadth of their opposition is intended to persuade voters of any stripe that Proposition 164 is not what it seems. The initiative’s supporters argue that those opponents are one set of vested interests protecting another.

The centerpiece of the late-starting campaign is an ad showing flamboyant Texas Rep. Charles Wilson sitting at his desk in Washington, repeating what he told The Times some months ago, that Proposition 164 would clear the decks of all those pesky California committee honchos. “Us Texans are going to like those odds!”

Campaign consultant Doug Jeffe’s agency put together the primary ballot arguments against the initiative, but it was not until August that Jeffe met with Rep. Julian B. Dixon (D-Los Angeles) about lining up a No on 164 effort.

Jeffe’s campaign had by this week collected about $150,000, he said. About $70,000 came from California members of Congress passing the hat. That kind of money is chump change in a statewide campaign. The Yes on 164 campaign has spent at least $455,000 in the last nine days.

Pacific Telesis Group, Southern California Edison, Bechtel Group, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance and BankAmerica Corp. have contributed as much as $25,000 to the No on 164 group. So has Chevron Corp.

Another oil company, Arco, gave $30,000 to the Yes on 164 group but the vast bulk financial support for the initiative, $447,000, has come from a Washington-based group with ties to the Libertarian movement, U.S. Term Limits.

Radio and some cable TV spots begin appearing this week, arguing that “national term limits are one thing, Proposition 164 is quite another”--ads that clearly allow breathing space for someone who wants to support the concept but not the specifics of Proposition 164.

And the horns of that dilemma are the uncomfortable perch for some of California’s members of Congress.

A September bipartisan meeting of at least half a dozen California members saw Dixon, who opposes term limits, leading the effort.

Members were “cautious about it,” concerned about their reelections and anti-incumbent sentiment, “not wanting to offend anybody,” Dixon said.

So who is campaigning against Proposition 164? And how ardently?

Not Rep. Vic Fazio, (D-Sacramento), the fifth-ranking Democrat in the House. Fazio does not shy away from saying he opposes term limits, said Sandi Stuart, his chief of staff. Fazio believes that elections every two years are term limits, she said.

But Stuart got angry when asked whether Fazio--in a difficult race against right-wing Republican H.L. Richardson--is working to help defeat Proposition 164.

“Absolutely not, 100% wrong, we have not been involved,” she said. “We haven’t been going to any meetings. . . . He has not given any money. He has a tough race and his campaign money is for his campaign. . . . I was told some Republicans were trying to say Vic was involved.”

Beating Fazio is a high priority for the GOP. “He is a target and this is just one other thing they’re trying to stick on him, but it doesn’t stick because it isn’t the truth,” she said.

On the Republican side, John T. Doolittle is a freshman member who opposes the initiative but supports term limits nationwide. He ruffled Democratic and GOP feathers as one of the “Gang of Seven” freshman members who stirred up the House bank scandal.

Although Doolittle attended the September bipartisan meeting, “that was done out of kindness to the Republican leader who Doolittle had upset with his ‘Gang of Seven’ work,” said his spokesman, Bob Mueller. “It was a way to try and rebuild the friendship. His attendance was more out of kindness to Jerry Lewis than it was an act of membership in the group.”

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) said Dixon asked him to go out front in opposing the initiative. Packard decided that he did not want to take part in a big public campaign. He says he opposes Proposition 164 but supports nationwide term limits.

According to Mueller, and to Sweet, Packard was threatened by a pro-164 person, saying that if the congressmen “did not stop whatever they were to do” against the initiative, “that their names would be published” in pro-164 campaign literature, Mueller said.

Packard’s chief of staff, David C. Coggin said: “I don’t know that he was threatened. . . . I do know that we heard thirdhand that anybody who worked against them would be targeted.”

Lewis, who supports national term limits but not by starting with California, said: “I didn’t receive any direct threats of that kind.”

“I heard about that (threats), but Pete Schabarum (a term limits advocate) has gotten involved not only in this issue but has taken kind of an anti-public officials stance that baffles me. I’ve known him for many, many years. He spent his whole personal life in one form or another at the public trough, so I’m really startled at his activity.”

Efforts to reach Schabarum for comment were unsuccessful.

But Southern California pro-164 campaign director Bill Chapman said his campaign wrote to members asking their position “one side or the other. A lot of people are trying to say they stand on both sides by saying they’re against 164 but in favor of national term limits.”

“We don’t call that a threat. . . . We may have had people polling in their area saying how their constituents felt, and coming out negative against term limits might be an issue. There never was any blacklist that we came up with.”

True to its historical fractiousness, the delegation is divided over how Proposition 164 would affect their influence.

“Proposition 164 is a good beginning and long overdue,” said Jeff Fedorchak, chief of staff for Rep. Frank Riggs (R-Windsor). “The short-term problems will be far outweighed by the long-term gains.”