Calif. ‘Maverick’ Pins Senate Bid on Drug Stand

By asserting Sunday that America should abandon its war on drugs in favor of preventing and treating narcotics abuse, Senate candidate Tom Campbell rushed headlong into what would normally be politically risky territory.

Campbell, a Republican congressman from San Jose, already has shown on the campaign trail that he is unorthodox, supporting such initiatives as a new federal tax structure and ending economic but not military aid to U.S. allies such as Israel and Egypt.

However, he is the underdog--one who needs the spotlight to close a big gap in the polls between him and incumbent Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

So Campbell’s well-received speech at the “shadow convention” here, and a subsequent address in support of abortion rights to hundreds of GOP delegates, left no doubt that Campbell intends to barrage voters with a series of Big Issue stands.

Privately, some in his campaign call this strategy a “long ball” approach--trying to win a contest with big plays. Publicly, his campaign describes it as Campbell’s brand of “maverick” politicking.

“I will pay a price for challenging the status quo,” Campbell told a crowd of several hundred at the University of Pennsylvania. “I will be called reckless, radical, coddling of criminals . . ., a defender of the drug culture.

“I am not soft on drugs. I think pushers are punks and cowards . . . [who] should be punished with the full force of the law.”

But citing studies by the Rand Corp. and other groups, he said drug arrests are up tenfold since 1980 and drug overdose deaths are up fivefold in that time. And while the U.S. continues to pump billions of dollars into anti-drug efforts, most of it goes toward law enforcement, not treatment, and still drug problems increase, he said.

Campbell’s speech, advancing the same controversial position he took in the primary against two conservative rivals, brought him a standing ovation. By the usual benchmarks, such a speech was politically suicidal. But it also has drawn Campbell plenty of attention.

“Will it mean anything? Probably not,” political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said as she exited the auditorium after Campbell’s speech. But, she added, it “creates an incredible dynamic” by positioning Campbell to lure independents and Green Party voters disillusioned with Democrats.

“I kept thinking about all the soccer moms, these upper-middle-class white parents who are really concerned they have lost control of their kids and the whole question of drugs is invading their lives,” she said. “And I think this has a certain resonance with them.”

Whether it can draw more votes than it jeopardizes remains the mystery.

“I think it will help him with a lot of voters,” said GOP delegate Rosario Marin, a Huntington Park councilwoman. “Most Californians will agree we need to spend more money on drug prevention.”

Another delegate, Glen Becerra, wasn’t so sure. A Simi Valley councilman, Becerra said he is torn because Feinstein endorsed him in his own election and because he is a “law-and-order” conservative.

“This issue might be a way of [Campbell] distancing himself on some issues with Feinstein,” he said. “But it might also make Feinstein tougher on crime than he is, so it could be a big risk. . .”

Bebitch Jeffe agreed.

“The political wisdom is that it is an issue you never address if you have a chance or are perceived to have a chance” at winning. “This is, in some sense, a ‘Hail Mary’ play. But sometimes they work.”