CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : SECRETARY OF STATE : Democrats Finally Air Ads and Touch Off Controversy

With relatively little money to spend and few public forums in which to debate their differences, the three Democrats running for secretary of state are finally getting their messages out just before Tuesday’s primary--through paid political advertising.

And the ads are creating controversy.

Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller has a television ad promising to carry on the tradition of March Fong Eu, who stepped down in February to become ambassador to Micronesia.

But Miller’s 30-second spot has raised hackles at the White House because of longstanding rules barring ambassadors from making political endorsements.

“Our policy is that presidential appointees are not permitted to endorse candidates in Democratic primaries,” said Tom Epstein, special assistant to President Clinton for political affairs. “And ambassadorial appointees are not permitted to be engaged in partisan politics of any kind.”

The Miller ad tries to turn the controversy to his advantage. Says the narrator: “The professional politicians don’t want you to know that March Fong Eu endorsed acting Secretary of State Tony Miller to carry on the job.”

Assemblywoman Gwen Moore of Los Angeles takes a different tack in radio ads that echo her campaign promise to shake up the status quo. These spots highlight her experience in the Legislature, where she authored the state’s family leave law as well as several significant pro-consumer statutes.

An announcer boasts that Moore “produces for people who can’t hire lobbyists.” The narrator does not point out that Moore twice carried special-interest legislation for undercover FBI agents masquerading as businessmen as part of a sting operation.

Former Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo’s television ads propose turning the office into an enforcement agency to stop firms that produce counterfeit brand-name products.

Along with coordinating elections and keeping political campaign and lobbying records, the secretary of state’s office currently has only a limited role in commerce--it maintains a variety of corporate records and registers trademarks.

For the secretary of state to take up this new law enforcement role and attack counterfeiters and trademark violators--now the job of the state attorney general and local prosecutors--would require legislation.

None of the candidates--with the possible exception of Woo, who ran second in the Los Angeles mayor’s race last year--is well-known to the statewide public. Among likely voters responding to the Times Poll last month, 29% favored Woo, more than twice his closest rival. But almost half of the likely Democratic primary voters were undecided.

No candidate in the race has the money to hammer home an effective message to an indifferent electorate. Woo has collected the most--$732,000 through May 22--but that is a pittance compared to what a candidate for governor can expect to spend. State Treasurer Kathleen Brown, for example, has spent $6 million in her race to become governor.

Moore has spent $452,000 on her campaign. More than $300,000 has been used to put her name on “slate cards,” a form of paid political advertising widely criticized as deceptive because they imply endorsement by an independent committee or political party. Unlike many of the other candidates, however, Moore was endorsed by the California Democratic Party at its April convention.

Moore’s opponents have been critical because her required pre-election campaign spending report, due in the secretary of state’s office May 26, was filed a week late. The report blames the delay on an “inaccurate data printout.”

Miller has collected only $341,000.

The three candidates appeared last week on a San Francisco radio talk show for their only face-to-face debate of the campaign.

During the broadcast, Woo attacked Miller for reducing fines against politicians and lobbyists who failed to file the required financial disclosure reports on time. Miller, who has worked in the secretary of state’s office since 1976, argued that he was the only candidate with the necessary experience. And Moore emphasized the need for innovation--particularly in getting more voters to participate in elections.