Legislature’s Fights Over Smoking to Flare Anew : Laws: Tobacco lobbyists derailed most bills, and their contributions may carry extra clout in an election season.

With this year’s legislative smoking war heading toward a shaky cease-fire, the stage is set for what could be an even more fiery fight over tobacco next year, fought against a backdrop of statewide elections.

A bill to ban smoking in indoor workplaces statewide almost certainly will be resurrected in 1994. That was assured when the anti-tobacco measure by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), one of the most heavily lobbied bills of the year, stalled last week in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the anti-smoking campaign will continue on other fronts, both in and outside the Capitol.

Anti-smoking advocates, buoyed by the city of Los Angeles’ new ban, have smoking bans pending in 13 cities. There is even the suggestion of statewide ballot initiatives.

And a legislative battle looms over how to divvy up $500 million in tobacco tax revenue. Of that, $100 million is used in a health education campaign that includes the strident billboard advertising campaign that equates tobacco companies with pushers. It is by far the largest such effort in the nation and is credited with reducing smoking.

California has among the lowest rates of smoking anywhere. An estimated 20% of the public smokes, down from 26.7% five years ago, and public sentiment seems to be strongly on the side of limiting smoking in public places.

This year, for the first time, the movement to curb smoking gathered surprising momentum in Sacramento after the release of an Environmental Protection Agency report saying 50,000 people a year die from the effects of secondhand smoke.

In the end, tobacco’s highly skilled lobbyists managed to derail all but a few of the measures in the unprecedented assault by anti-smoking lawmakers against the industry.

“It is the battle royal; it’s California,” said Bruce Pomer, a lobbyist who worked for passage of Friedman’s smoking ban on behalf of an organization of hospitals. “(Tobacco companies) are putting their brightest people into it.”

Cigarette manufacturers and tobacco trade groups spent $1.33 million on lobbying and for the campaigns of state lawmakers and others during the first half of the year.

But money was only part of the effort. The tobacco industry also devised a potent argument.

Instead of debating health issues surrounding secondhand smoke, opponents said the smoking ban would cause economic hardships on small businesses, particularly those in the tourist trade. And in a recession, no lawmaker wanted to be painted as being anti-business. Many lawmakers who opposed the smoking ban cited the business argument as their chief reason.

The California Restaurant Assn., the state’s largest restaurant group, supported Friedman’s bill. But the group was countered by individual restaurateurs and bar owners who reinforced the tobacco industry’s anti-business message, repeatedly visiting Sacramento to speak out against the ban.

Their visits were coordinated in part by lobbyists and consultants, including the executives of the Dolphin Group, a political consulting and public relations firm in Westwood. Bar and restaurant owners were particularly powerful because they hailed from the districts of key lawmakers.

“Tobacco had everything going for it: money, grass roots and an incredibly effective team of lobbyists who know how to communicate,” Pomer said. “But, you know, they may still lose.”

As the session draws to an end this week, one bill aimed at tobacco that has survived is a measure by Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame). It seeks to ban smoking in state buildings and state cars. Her bill is awaiting Gov. Pete Wilson’s signature.

Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman (D-Los Angeles) continues to push for an added two-cent tax on packs of cigarettes. The $38 million in annual revenue would fund breast cancer research and early detection.

The odds are long that Friedman’s bill will move, although state Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Fremont), who chairs the Judiciary Committee where the measure has stalled, continues to negotiate with the assemblyman.

As it is, nearly 80 California cities and counties have imposed smoking bans in restaurants and workplaces. Six have imposed bans since the end of July. By year’s end, the total could approach 100.

Within the anti-smoking movement, there is disagreement over whether a state law is needed. Stanton Glantz, a professor at UC San Francisco medical school and a veteran of the anti-smoking fight, is convinced that the only way to limit smoking is by local action.

Glantz fears that the tobacco industry will end up killing the ban that Friedman seeks and at the same time will persuade lawmakers to impose a weak statewide standard that will preempt local governments from enacting strict bans.

“It’s basically a war,” Glantz said. “If you are a small guerrilla band, do you do frontal assaults on the enemy’s citadel? No. In this case, the Legislature is the citadel.”

If they continue to lose at the local level and do not win a statewide standard to their liking, tobacco interests could respond with a ballot proposition.

Friedman, meanwhile, said he plans to spend at least part of the fall recess seeking support for a statewide ballot initiative that would go further than his current bill by imposing a flat-out ban on smoking in all indoor workplaces and a hefty tax on cigarettes.

“On balance,” Friedman said, “we won most of the battles this year. My commitment is that next year, we will win the war.”

That war will be fought amid a big election year. All 80 Assembly seats, 20 state Senate seats and all the state constitutional offices--from governor to superintendent of schools--will be up for grabs. It’s a certainty that tobacco industry campaign contributions will play a crucial role.

Cigarette manufacturers and their trade groups gave $1.2 million to legislators and candidates for the Legislature in the 1991-92 election cycle, and they spent $2.2 million on efforts to overturn local anti-smoking ordinances during those years.