NEWS ANALYSIS : Money May Play a Bigger Role in Elections

Incumbency has always been the biggest barrier to women and minorities underrepresented in California’s halls of power. So term limits for the state Legislature would seem to be just the ticket for remaking the mostly white, mostly male face of politics here into something vaguely representative.

But among those who would seem to benefit from the Supreme Court’s upholding of Proposition 140 on Thursday, glee was restrained. Those trying to sketch the future visage of California politics were finding the hues and shadings difficult to predict.

The initial impact of Proposition 140 is simple to deduce: Legislative, local and congressional contests are likely to be far more competitive as the once straightforward road to political success mutates into a new, many-branched form. Local offices once spurned by state officeholders might be immensely appealing now, compared to the alternative of unemployment. Leaps to higher office--once planned as strategically as a military campaign--might be enticing to a candidate with nothing to lose.

But those predicting a wholesale, long-term political renaissance in California were hard to find. For most, the problem remained this: Money fuels incumbents. And even if the advantage of incumbency is gone, money remains as the ultimate and unpredictable determiner of political fate.

Many argue that the pervasive influence of campaign fund raising will be even more pronounced, stoking the anger of an already frustrated public that vented its rage by voting for term limits.

“It’s going to place a premium on political consultants and campaigns with bankrolls--who is able to secure the political consultants, who is able to secure the bankrolls,” said Harry Pachon, executive director of the National Assn. of Latino Elected Officials, expressing a concern raised across the state Thursday.

Added Pachon: “Do we really think citizen-candidates can afford the $300,000 to $400,000 it takes to run for office?”

Needless to say, proponents of term limits were more buoyant. Pete Schabarum, the former Los Angeles County supervisor who was the moving force behind Proposition 140, declared that Thursday’s Supreme Court decision had bolstered the political currency of the term limits cause.

“The decision today has really given the whole movement a shot in the arm and a great deal more credibility than just a day ago,” said Schabarum, who recently has been raising money to defend Proposition 140 in court. “This is serious stuff now.”

Without exception, those trying to chart the future of California’s political strength saw the glint of a double-edged sword. More women and minorities may enter the political arena, but role models already there will find themselves tossed aside.

“It opens the system, yet it simultaneously takes away the biggest supporters of progressive and liberal causes,” said Jane Danowitz of the Washington-based Women’s Campaign Fund, echoing the concerns of several involved politicos.

“The slate is wiped clean and there’s not a lot of places for those (currently elected) women to go,” she said.

Particularly painful to some was their suspicion that liberal causes might find themselves subverted as politicians maneuver for short-term advantage.

“I lean to the side of being real worried that elected officials in the state of California are managing a $60-billion budget and think they can learn it in six years,” said Maxine Waters, who spent 14 years in the state Assembly before her 1990 election to Congress.

“I worked on the budget conference committee longer than that and still didn’t know it as much as I’d like,” Waters said. “It took me seven years to pass (legislation mandating) South African divestment. There are a number of issues I worry about.”

Indeed, with the potential for ideological change, new life could be breathed into movements whose goals have been stymied by the continuing presence of powerful legislators opposed to their causes.

Susan Carpenter-McMillan, a spokeswoman for anti-abortion forces, praised the decision as advantageous to her movement’s goals.

“In California, it gives us the chance to kind of start all over and start working very slowly in terms of the pro-life issue,” said Carpenter-McMillan, a spokeswoman for the Right-to-Life League.

“We can . . . really start in a 20-year plan. Term limits totally and completely feeds into what we need and what we want. Believe me, if this was a pro-life state (Legislature), I wouldn’t be saying that.”

People from both sides of the ideological aisle suggested that the flow of campaign money will not be stanched by term limits, although many expect that individual politicians may lose their power-broker status. Under many scenarios put forth Thursday, corporations, lobbying entities and special-interest groups will, by virtue of their donations, have increased power over candidates.

“Candidates who are in a position to raise significant campaign war chests from special interests will still have an advantage over public interests,” said Lucy Blake, executive director of the League of Conservation Voters.

Anticipating the ultimate approval of Proposition 140, the league recently initiated a program to groom prospective environmental-minded candidates, a tactic that may be duplicated by other interest groups. About 50 potential candidates attended a recent candidate training conference.

“The challenge is the players in Sacramento are going to be constantly changing,” Blake said. “As Proposition 140 kicks into place, we are grooming people to take the place of the (outgoing) legislators . . . so that our agenda is not stalled by a lack of leadership.”

Few expect that voter cynicism, which in large part propelled Proposition 140 to success in 1990, will be allayed if the measure goes into effect.

“Until the Legislature and the governor start delivering better service . . . that cynicism will not ease,” said former Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who campaigned for a less-restrictive initiative on term limits during his 1990 bid for governor.

“With reapportionment, and with this, it is a double-pronged slam on the present system, and it has the potential of starting fresh,” Van de Kamp said. “That can be worse than it is now, depending on the caliber of the people we get. Or it can be better. It’s a roll of the dice.”