The Key Topics: Where the Candidates Differed

The following are excerpts from key topics covered in Sunday night’s gubernatorial debate in Burbank between Democrat former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Pete Wilson.

CHANGE

Wilson: “I think people are disillusioned because government hasn’t been working. We have to engage in prevention of a kind that is much more cost effective and infinitely more humane than the kind of remedial actions that we have undertaken in the past. I would much rather prevent drug use than try to rehabilitate it. I would much rather prevent crime than punish it.”

Feinstein: “I think the question before the electorate is who is best apt to provide this change. Is it someone who has been part of the policies . . . or someone who is going to chart a new future. You have to get out there and lead. I think there’s a need for someone who comes in that’s fresh, that’s new, that’s a little bit different.”

LEGISLATURE TERM LIMITS

Wilson: “I’ve come to the conclusion I’m going to endorse Proposition 140, the term limits, because it may be the only way that we can make basic change in Sacramento. This California Legislature had deteriorated markedly. The two Democratic leaders . . . have been up there a combined total of over 50 years.”

Feinstein: “You don’t have term limits on lobbyists, you don’t have term limits on bureaucrats. I agree with President Reagan. I don’t think term limits make sense. Senator, if you really feel you can’t handle (Assembly Speaker) Willie Brown and (Senate President Pro Tem) David Roberti, stay in Washington. I’ll handle them.”

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Feinstein: “I favor a cap on spending, absolutely. Sen. Wilson talks about special interests and yet Sen. Wilson is the largest recipient of Savings and Loan contributions in the United States Congress. He’s the second largest in contributions from the chemical industry.

Wilson: “You can’t say we’re going to break the grip of special interests and not take fat special interest checks and then do so. As far as your CHP contribution, Dianne, I am truly shocked that you would be so blind to such a gross conflict of interest that you would take $150,000 from a state public employee association when you, or as governor, if you were elected, would be in a position where you would have to set or approve their salaries.”

ATTENDANCE

Wilson: “I have had an excellent attendance record. The votes I have missed, 30 of them had to do with the appendectomy that I suffered . . . I have been involved in those budget negotiations as much as anybody else who is not one of the five who sits there in the negotiations. But I think it would be a real insult to the people of California to be absent during the debate. Mrs. Feinstein would be delighted to have me in Washington. I don’t blame her. Then she would have the stage to herself.”

Feinstein: “I think absenteeism is an important indication of performance . . . the senator has the third worst attendance record in the Congress. He hasn’t returned to Washington since the Senate reconvened . . . I think it’s a mistake to be here the day before yesterday measuring podiums when the federal government has come to a complete halt.”

TAXES

Wilson: “I released all of my tax returns . . . I think it’s the only way the people can have a fair understanding of whether a candidate or an officeholder has some personal economic interest that is in conflict with his or her public duty. Will you join me as tomorrow I send to you and the press 10 years worth of tax returns?”

Feinstein: “Pete, my husband and I have made available 17 years of tax returns. The press has had an opportunity to come in and examine them. I could throw a challenge to you as well. No one said anything to you about your spouse’s property. It’s in a blind trust. I think you ought to make those investments available.”

LOTTERY

Feinstein: “Would you support early childhood education for every youngster in the state of California funded by a change in the lottery, to increase the share that goes to education from 34% to 50%, just two points over what the state of New York’s lottery provides to education?”

Wilson: “. . . a part of my program did include exactly the kind of preschool education you’re taking about. You want to decrease the amount that goes to prizes and increase the percentage that goes to education. I would be all for that if it worked. (New York) and other states which run lotteries have found that if they do not guarantee a certain prize level . . . they do not generate greater revenues at all, not for education or anything else.”