Inside the Ads : SENATE

Republican Senate candidate Mike Huffington has taken out full-page newspaper ads in today’s Los Angeles Times and in other papers.

* The Ad: The full-page newspaper ad quotes passages and cites information from a Times story about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of potential conflicts related to her personal and political finances. The point of the ad is to underscore Huffington’s contention that Feinstein has used her position in the Senate to enrich her husband, merchant banker Richard C. Blum.

* The Analysis: The ad refers to several paragraphs of the nearly 3,000-word Times story that ran Oct. 28. But some of the quotes and references in the ad are incomplete, and, in one case, it does not cite other facts in the story indicating that Feinstein’s actions did not violate any rules.

The ad says, for example, that two longtime clients and friends of Blum have connections to a San Francisco firm, Catellus Corp. The ad says Feinstein’s original Desert Protection Act would have given Catellus special allowances to swap its 366,000 acres of desert land for other government surplus property. What the ad does not say is that after Republicans objected to the Catellus provision, the Senate Natural Resources Committee pulled it from the bill. The measure, without the Catellus provision, was later signed into law. Feinstein has said she took the Catellus provision directly from the House of Representatives’ version of the legislation.

The ad also quotes a passage from The Times’ report that on May 25, “in a speech delivered on the Senate floor, Feinstein urges Clinton to increase favorable trade relations with China at the same time Blum is planning to invest up to $150 million there. . . .” The ad does not include the five words at the end of the sentence, “on behalf of several clients.” Blum has said he would put $2 million to $5 million of his own money into the investment.

The story also noted that under Senate rules, Feinstein may vote on bills that affect her husband’s finances so long as the legislation is not designed to specifically benefit Blum or his investments.

The ad did not mention that in some cases Feinstein has taken actions that adversely affected her husband’s myriad investments in everything from cable television and an airline to container products.

Feinstein has released the couple’s tax returns back to their 1980 marriage, and has challenged Huffington to do the same. Blum released his client list in 1990 but has declined to release his corporate returns until Huffington makes his tax records available.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein released three new television commercials Saturday in a final blitz before Tuesday’s election.

* THE AD: One ad opens with a theme of the Democrat’s campaign: “Who can you trust? Feinstein or Huffington?” An announcer then reads, “Congressman Huffington admits he broke federal immigration law. Dianne Feinstein broke no federal immigration laws.” Moving to another issue, the announcer reads: “Congressman Huffington stiffed California for nearly $7 million in corporate taxes. And Huffington avoided paying millions in California income taxes by claiming a Texas residence. Huffington still won’t release his tax returns. But, you know Dianne Feinstein pays her taxes because she released 17 years of tax returns.” The ad closes: “Congressman Huffington. The Texas oil millionaire Californians just can’t trust.”

* THE ANALYSIS: Huffington admitted recently that he violated federal immigration law by employing an illegal immigrant nanny at his Santa Barbara home for more than four years, ending last summer. He has already paid fines and back taxes on the woman’s salary to the Internal Revenue Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service is reviewing the matter. Huffington has charged recently that Feinstein also employed an illegal immigrant housekeeper from 1980 until 1983. Feinstein said she hired a woman from Guatemala, but the woman produced documents indicating that she was in the country legally. INS officials say the housekeeper entered the country legally, but her visa only allowed her to work at the Guatemalan Consulate and even that permission expired while she worked for Feinstein. In any case, employment of an illegal immigrant only became a federal crime in 1986, several years after Feinstein’s case and before Huffington’s.

The charge that Huffington “stiffed California for nearly $7 million in corporate taxes” stems from a claim made by California tax authorities against a subsidiary of the Huffington family’s former Texas oil and gas company. The claim was rejected by a federal judge after the subsidiary went into bankruptcy. The charge that Huffington avoided California income taxes stems from a period when the candidate and his wife claimed separate residences. Huffington said he did not owe California taxes until he moved to the state from Houston in 1991 after his family’s company was sold. For several years previously, Huffington’s wife was living at the couple’s home in Santa Barbara. As the ad says, Huffington has declined to release his personal income taxes while Feinstein has allowed reporters to look at hers.

* THE AD: This ad begins with a narrator reading a question, “Feinstein or Huffington?” It continues: “The Chronicle, The Fresno Bee, The Sacramento Bee, The Examiner, The Mercury News, The Tribune, The L.A. Times and newspapers all across California--even congressman Huffington’s own local newspaper--all choose Dianne Feinstein. They call Feinstein a zealous protector of California, a person of substance and intelligence, a real leader and a coalition builder who has won friends among Democrats and Republicans.” It closes: “On Tuesday, elect Dianne Feinstein. The California Senator Californians trust.”

* THE ANALYSIS: The factual claims in the ad are true. Feinstein has been endorsed by most of the state’s major newspapers. Huffington won the endorsement of the San Diego Union. Feinstein officials said this ad will only be shown on cable television channels.

* THE AD: This comparison commercial begins with an announcer saying: “Dianne Feinstein authored and won the first ban on assault weapons. Where was congressman Huffington? Dianne Feinstein took on the radical right and protected a woman’s right to choose. Where was congressman Huffington? For over 20 years, Dianne Feinstein has had the independence to buck her own party and fight for the death penalty. Where was congressman Huffington? The choice is not just who has a record of accomplishment, it’s who Californians can trust to fight for them. There’s only one answer. Dianne Feinstein. The California Senator Californians can trust.”

* THE ANALYSIS: Raising abortion rights and the death penalty, this commercial addresses two of the most powerful issues that motivate voters. But on all of the issues raised in the commercial, the two candidates generally agree. Feinstein authored the assault weapons ban in the Senate, but Huffington also voted for it in the House. Like Feinstein, Huffington also supports abortion rights and he favors the death penalty. Feinstein has criticized her opponent’s record on abortion rights, especially since he voted against federal funding of abortions for poor women.