NEWS ANALYSIS : Will Huffington’s Purse Strings Tangle Senate Race?

Just a few months ago, campaign handicappers were counting Dianne Feinstein’s reelection to the U.S. Senate as one of this year’s best bets in California.

After two consecutive statewide campaigns, she has the profile of a centrist Democrat that looked to be a close match for the modern California voter. And during an active first year in Washington, she pushed her poll numbers into the range where incumbents are rarely threatened.

But at Feinstein headquarters today, the staff is preparing to fight for the senator’s political life in a race they expect will probably be more expensive than any congressional contest in U.S. history. The reason is Rep. Michael Huffington (R-Santa Barbara).

Huffington, 46, a little-known freshman in Congress who only moved to California a few years ago, would ordinarily be regarded as a minor annoyance for a powerful veteran such as Feinstein. But the former Texas oilman is a multimillionaire who shook the political landscape in 1992 when he spent more than $5 million of his own money to unseat a popular GOP veteran.

Now he seems to have something similar in mind for the entire state. His bank account has already scared off some of the Republican Party’s rising stars who had considered the race. And those remaining in the June 7 GOP primary are regarded as such long shots that Huffington has set his sights on a November showdown with Feinstein.

“The only reason that Dianne . . . has to worry about reelection is the size of Huffington’s personal war chest and his avowed willingness to spend it,” said Democratic campaign consultant Darry Sragow, who managed Feinstein’s 1990 gubernatorial campaign but is not involved in this year’s Senate race. “She is in a strong position, but were I advising Dianne, I would suggest she not take the race lightly.”

California’s size and diversity has forced its statewide candidates to become television celebrities because it is the only medium that has proved effective at reaching millions of voters. And because it costs millions of dollars to become a familiar face in living rooms from Eureka to San Diego, California’s statewide offices have been limited to those who are well-known or those with enormous amounts of money.

Feinstein is ranked sixth among the wealthiest elected officers in Washington and when she ran for governor in 1990 she spent about $3 million of her own money in a losing effort. But she spent none of her own money to win the Senate seat two years ago and for once will face an opponent even richer than she is.

Roll Call, a weekly newspaper in Washington, has estimated her wealth, mostly from her husband’s investments, at $50 million, and Huffington’s at $75 million.

Huffington campaign watchers from both parties are wondering how much of his fortune the Republican candidate is willing to risk on this race. With personal money and contributions, Huffington has said his minimum campaign budget is about $15 million compared to the $10 million Feinstein’s staff is planning.

Some Democrats speculate that he may be willing to send this race into the financial stratosphere by spending $20 million--more than five times the national average for a Senate race. If so, the campaign will wander into uncharted territory where conventional rules do not apply.

Huffington said in an interview that his campaign budget might run over $20 million, but added: “I hope not.”

Democrats believe that Huffington has spent more than $1 million on television commercials and sources say he has pledged at least $2 million to the state Republican Party’s grass-roots effort.

The money will help GOP candidates throughout the state and it has won the newcomer a lot of friends. Last week he was endorsed by the state Senate Republican caucus, a rare action before a GOP primary.

“Michael Huffington, a respected businessman, has proven that he has what it takes to win,” Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy said in a statement. “He represents the party’s best chance to regain this Senate seat.”

Huffington will face two Republicans who have promised to wage active campaigns in the June 7 primary.

Candidate William E. Dannemeyer, 63, is a former seven-term Orange County congressman who made his reputation as a champion of conservative causes and an outspoken opponent of homosexuals. Now he accuses Huffington of practicing liberal politics that threaten the nation’s economic and social well-being.

“Based on your short voting record, I have a question for you,” Dannemeyer wrote to Huffington in a recent letter. “Why don’t you re-register as a Democrat?”

Huffington’s other primary challenger is a 34-year-old Riverside attorney, Kate Squires, who is a newcomer to politics.

Some Republican conservatives who are unhappy with Huffington are quietly encouraging Dannemeyer and Squires. But neither has shown the financial horsepower needed to wage an effective statewide campaign and even some of their supporters say they expect Huffington to be the party’s nominee.

Both campaigns have indicated that they will focus their efforts on each other.

Huffington’s first job is to introduce himself to California voters. So over the last month he has broadcast a trilogy of television commercials throughout the state. One spot focused on crime, another on his biography as a businessman, and a third raised the issue of social values.

Huffington has not targeted Feinstein directly in his television commercials yet, but in speeches to Republican groups he has outlined his campaign’s strategy to defeat the incumbent.

The Republican plans to call attention to Feinstein’s vote last year for President Clinton’s deficit reduction package of tax increases and spending cuts and to her Democratic colleague in the Senate, Barbara Boxer. He contends the picture will show Feinstein to be a big-spending liberal who has made a career out of politics.

“My main concern about Mrs. Feinstein is her vote on the budget--that is the reason I really got involved in this race,” Huffington said in a recent speech in Sacramento. “Her rhetoric is moderate, but her actions are liberal.”

Taking advantage of a line the two California senators used in the closing days of their 1992 campaign, Huffington added: “She and Mrs. Boxer, who is not known as a moderate, are the Thelma and Louise of the United States Senate.”

Feinstein, 60, has not broadcast any television commercials yet and she has not targeted Huffington in her public speeches. But in comments to reporters she has clearly framed the contest as one between a proven and dedicated public servant and an ambitious opportunist who has little knowledge of California, let alone how to solve its problems.

In many ways, she has had her eye on this race ever since she was elected in November, 1992, to serve the two years remaining in the Senate term left vacant by Pete Wilson’s election to governor. She has been given credit for helping to fund more Border Patrol guards, securing disaster aid for California and persuading a cautious Senate to embrace her controversial ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles.

“I believe I’ve demonstrated that I can be effective,” Feinstein said in an interview Friday. “So I’m asking the people who voted for me two years ago to reinforce that vote and elect me for a full six-year term.”

Feinstein’s campaign intends to make generous use of the charge that Huffington is trying to buy the election and that he is a carpetbagger who only moved to California from Texas in 1991. They also contend that Huffington’s fortune is inherited, not earned.

“I’m running against a Texan who, in his luggage, brought a lot of money,” she said in an interview. “He ran for the House, got there, and decided in eight months that it wasn’t for him, so he’s trying for the Senate. I don’t think that washes in California.

“The only thing that California would elect (in Huffington) is a dollar sign,” she added. “There is not one product of public service.”

Huffington’s campaign says it is happy to debate his inexperience in government and use of personal funds. With so many voters unhappy about government’s performance, Huffington contends that experience in Congress is not a campaign asset. And by using his personal funds, Huffington said he will not depend on special interests to win election.

“I hope she spends $2 million talking about his inexperience,” said Ken Khachigian, a Huffington campaign adviser. “It shows how out of touch she is to think that (the voters’) concept of experience is picking up a government check every week.”

Both candidates are considered moderates within their parties and their positions overlap on a number of prominent issues. Except for the vote on Clinton’s budget package, it is unclear how many issues will distinguish Feinstein and Huffington.

Both favor abortion rights and have opposed discrimination against homosexuals. On crime, both said they favor gun control, the death penalty and the new “three strikes” anti-crime law. On immigration, both have called for more border guards and a cutback in public services to illegal immigrants.

With the prospect of a political campaign between a pair of multimillionaires, the race is certain to stimulate debate about the political power of money.

After Huffington and other millionaire House candidates ran in 1992, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) authored a bill that seeks to equalize the playing field for candidates with average incomes. It would eliminate the $1,000 contribution limit on federal candidates only until they match the personal contribution made by a wealthy opponent.

“We basically have given the advantage to rich people who may or may not know anything about politics and who have very little ideological commitment but who have big bank accounts,” said Rohrabacher, who said he will remain neutral in the GOP Senate primary. “This applies to both Michael Huffington and Dianne Feinstein.”