Van de Kamp Unveils Own Crime Initiative

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp Monday in effect acknowledged his potential vulnerability on the crime issue in next year’s governor’s race by introducing his own crime initiative for the November, 1990, ballot.

Calling it the “anti-drug act of 1990,” the attorney general announced at a Los Angeles press conference that his measure would increase taxes on corporations to create a “California anti-drug superfund” that would finance a range of efforts to combat drug trafficking and abuse.

Also tacked onto the new Van de Kamp initiative is the same language of another crime initiative backed by another gubernatorial candidate, Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson--minus two words that Van de Kamp believes threaten a woman’s right to abortion in California.

The press conference focused first on the anti-drug aspect, which Van de Kamp hopes will make it attractive enough to get the 600,000 valid voter signatures he needs to qualify the measure by next April.

Similar to legislation that failed last week to get the necessary votes in Sacramento, the initiative would produce $1.7 billion in new revenues over three years by forcing California corporations to make certain accounting procedures conform with federal tax law.

These include the way corporations handle income on installment contracts and how they pay taxes on large contracts, such as those common in the aerospace industry.

“These are accounting changes that companies have already adopted at the federal level,” said Assembly Johan Klehs (D-Castro Valley), who carried the legislation.

“Companies in California are currently keeping two sets of books to avoid paying state income taxes. What we are trying to do is close those loopholes and make sure the companies keep one set of books.”

The back end of the new initiative is Van de Kamp’s way of trying to deal with a potential problem when he announced in late July that he could not support the so-called “speedy trial initiative.”

That measure, currently being qualified for the June, 1990 ballot, is sponsored by crime victims groups, most district attorneys in the state and by Sen. Wilson.

Would Speed Jury Selection

It would speed up jury selection in state trials and make it easier for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

Van de Kamp has long opposed both those reforms, but now says he would go along with them if the authors of the speedy trial initiative take out a section that would supersede California’s constitutional right to privacy with federal law.

The attorney general and some women’s groups argue that such a change would make it possible for future legislatures to outlaw abortion.

By adding the speedy trial measure’s language to his own initiative, minus the section on privacy, Van de Kamp hopes to protect his flank in case the Wilson-backed measure is defeated and he is blamed by angry prosecutors and victims’ groups.

If the speedy trial measure does pass next June, it would be the law of the state. Should Van de Kamp’s crime measure pass in November, the section affecting privacy would come out of the law.

Wilson’s campaign director, Otto Bos, said Monday “This is the height of cynicism to embrace a proposed law that you are personally against,” a reference to the death penalty provision.

Wilson, who is pro-choice on abortion, maintains that the speedy trial initiative does not threaten a woman’s right to abortion.

Several legal scholars have joined Van de Kamp in warning that now that the U.S. Supreme Court has given states more say on abortion, any tinkering with the right to privacy in the California Constitution could ultimately affect abortion.

Van de Kamp’s opponent in the Democratic primary, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, issued a statement Monday ridiculing the attorney general for introducing his third ballot initiative for 1990.

“John Van de Kamp has spent more than a dozen years in elective office,” said the Feinstein statement, “and the voters of California have nothing to show for it. The Van de Kamp ‘initiatives du jour’ notwithstanding, they still don’t.”