DECLARING WAR ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

Republican Rep. Tom Campbell takes on Sen. Dianne Feinstein by attacking
U.S. drug policy. Sure, it's California -- but does he have a chance?

Sep. 18, 2000 - Only eight weeks before the election, trailing 17 points
behind Dianne Feinstein in the race for U.S. Senate, Republican Tom
Campbell has taken a radical turn and become a one-note songbird crusading
against the federal government's war on drugs. He is aggressively
championing a ballot measure in California that would place nonviolent drug
offenders in rehabilitation programs instead of jails or prisons.

It's clear that Campbell is using his war on the war on drugs to attract
reporters hungry for a good story. And it has earned him more media
attention than a candidate trailing by so much in the polls might hope for.
Campbell and his advisors understand what makes a good story, and are doing
everything they can to seduce the press on their shoestring budget.
Campbell's campaign spokesman Sean Walsh calls the congressman's long-shot
bid a "rage against the machine." One California Republican said a Campbell
victory would take "an act of God."

But is harping on the drug war really a winning issue in law-and-order
obsessed California? Campbell has hitched his political fate to a ballot
measure -- Proposition 36 -- that would divert nonviolent drug offenders
into drug treatment centers rather than into California' overcrowded
prisons and jails. If it's to be successful, the issue will have to
resonate with voters in a way nobody ever would have expected.

The immediate results of early polling on Prop. 36 are positive, showing it
with an early lead. But many believe that will disappear once the campaign
is joined in earnest. "The numbers were 55-27 in favor, but awareness was
only 13 percent," said Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll. "The public is
reacting to it in a very broad-brush way. It sounds like a good idea. The
history of propositions would show that usually you have to start out ahead
to have any chance of passage on election day. But only about half of those
that start out ahead ultimately get passed. As awareness grows, it's
literally a tossup."

"I'm a pragmatist," Campbell says. "I look at a system now that is clearly
broken, clearly a failure, and I'm prepared to try alternative routes to
solving this problem." He has said the drug war is tantamount to the Jim
Crow laws of the Reconstruction-era South because of its disproportionate
effect on African-Americans. And he has called unjust and dangerous
President Clinton's decision to ram through Congress a new $1.3 billion aid
package to Colombia for its own war on drugs. Campbell likes to compare the
Colombia aid package to a Vietnam-style intervention.

But the initiative has some powerful enemies. Law enforcement agencies are
tripping over themselves in an effort to come out against the initiative.
The "No" campaign is being run by a Republican consulting firm whose main
client, the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association,
has come down firmly against the measure. Even the liberal actor Martin
Sheen, who plays the president on television's "The West Wing," came out
against the initiative last month.

Feinstein, meanwhile, has expressed "grave reservations" about Prop. 36,
according to campaign manager Kam Kuwata, though she has not taken a formal
position on the measure. In fact, to the extent that Feinstein will engage
Campbell at all, Kuwata hopes it will be on the senator's terms, not
Campbell's.

But that has done little to stop Campbell. Not only does he believe
strongly in the issue, he understands he has nothing to lose by making it
the focal point of his campaign. It is a message Campbell brought to the
"Shadow Convention" in Philadelphia and Los Angeles this summer, just one
of the places Republicans typically dare not tread, but that Campbell is
depending on to try to form a political base. "I've seen polling from a
number of different sources on the issue," said Dan Schnur, former
communications director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and a
Campbell advisor.

"I've been struck by how receptive Californians are to the idea of
treatment instead of mandatory prison time for nonviolent offenders."

Clearly, Campbell is not doing as well in the polls as the initiative he
supports. While that gap with Feinstein narrowed from 26 points earlier
this summer, it is still a daunting hurdle to overcome. Campbell is also
trailing badly in the fundraising race. According to the most recent
Federal Election Commission reports from the Center for Responsive
politics, Feinstein has more than $3.1 million in the bank to Campbell's
$1.1 million.

Arianna Huffington, the mind behind the anti-government-as-usual Shadow
Conventions (and a frequent Salon contributor), has written a pair of
flattering columns about Campbell's stand on the drug war. "He has
leadership qualities that are so rare in a profession full of lemmings,"
Huffington says of Campbell. But the former Republican turned populist
admits Campbell's candidacy may be a long shot. "His strategy would have to
be appealing to nonvoters," she says. "If he can mobilize a piece of that
majority who won't even be voting on election day, then he has a chance."
(Of course, Huffington played a significant role last time Feinstein ran
for reelection. In 1994, her then-husband Michael Huffington, a political
unknown, spent $30 million and came within a whisker of knocking Feinstein
out. Comparing the two campaigns, Huffington laughed: "This campaign
doesn't have as much money.")

So Campbell is trying to piggyback on Prop 36, sponsored by the California
Campaign for New Drug Policies, the same group that sponsored medical
marijuana initiatives in California and around the country. The initiative
is being bankrolled by the Soros Foundation, along with Men's Wearhouse
founder George Zimmer.

"There's strong sentiment that we're turning people into criminals by
putting them into prison," said CCNDP manager Dave Fratello. "I believe
you're going to see a discussion on people reevaluating what defines
criminal behavior."

Fratello said his group has embarked on a nationwide crusade to change the
nation's drug laws. A similar measure will be on the ballot in
Massachusetts this fall, and other sentencing reform initiatives will
appear in Utah and Oregon.

"I think there's dissatisfaction with the drug war," Fratello said. "All of
our tough-on-crime measures have swelled the prison population, yet we
haven't done anything to help nonviolent drug users who keep coming in by
the thousands. That means less room for violent offenders and a consequent
orgy of prison building.

"The failures of those policies are palpable for a lot of people," Fratello
said. But he rejected the notion that Proposition 36 was soft on crime.
"We're not going in a softer direction toward drugs -- that's important.
Drug treatment is tougher on crime than jail is. This actually deals with
the root cause of so much crime by individuals. Rehabilitation can make
people into taxpaying productive citizens rather than a drain on society."

Opponents of the initiative disagree. In a written statement announcing his
role as honorary co-chairman of the "No on 36" campaign, Sheen (whose son
Charlie has wrestled with substance abuse) wrote: "I've seen how
devastating drug addiction can be. Drug addicts need to be held directly
accountable by the court with real sanctions." He said the measure would
effectively decriminalize "dangerous and highly addictive drugs like
heroin, crack cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine."

Schnur, a veteran of California campaigns, knows that Campbell's views will
be a tough sell. Throughout the 1990s, the trend in California has been one
of stricter penalties for criminals of all kinds. The state Legislature has
passed a slew of tougher sentencing laws including minimum sentences for
using a gun during a crime and additional penalties for drive-by shootings
or shooting police officers. In 1994, voters approved a "three strikes"
measure at the ballot box, giving mandatory 25 years to life sentences for
third-time felons. Attempts to amend the law to only cover violent felonies
have routinely been shot down. And just this March, voters approved
Proposition 21, an overhaul of the state's juvenile justice system that
subjects teenage criminals to stiffer penalties and allows prosecutors to
decide whether youths as young as 14 should be tried as adults.

But Campbell believes the same schizophrenia that generally applies to
California politics can apply to the crime issue. "Remember, this is the
state of Gov. Ronald Reagan and Gov. Jerry Brown," he says. "And they were
elected one after the other."

Schnur says that Campbell's message is consistent, even if it is more
complicated than the typical political sales pitch. "If you take the time
to think it through, the voters' opinion on this issue is entirely
consistent. They want to punish the criminal element who deserve punishment
and they want to punish them to the fullest extent of the law and then
some," Schnur says. "On the other hand, they want to help those who are in
need of help. Voters draw a distinction between the 19-year-old caught with
a gram of pot in her jacket pocket and a pusher who selling crystal meth to
children."

If Campbell fails, his advisors say, it may just be because he is,
politically speaking, slightly ahead of his time. "Over the next two months
you will see a more reasoned and nuanced discussion of this issue than
you've seen anywhere in America to this point," Schnur says. "Until this
point, the political dialogue has always treated these two people in
precisely the same way."

But some of Campbell's problems are of his own making. While he positions
himself as a Silicon Valley libertarian, he has irked many high tech
executives in the valley on a number of different issues. From his
unwillingess to sign off on a bill for uniform national standards for class
action law suits in federal courts -- a key issue for Silicon Valley
businesses -- to his navel gazing on permanent normalized trade relations
with China, which he eventually supported.

Campbell has vacillated on some key issues for Silicon Valley execs.

That has dried up a lot of the money for Campbell in the valley.
Feinstein's campaign happily points out that Cisco Systems, led by CEO John
Chambers -- a strong Bush booster -- is a Feinstein contributor, chipping
in $16,800 to her campaign as of July.

"In the past, he has supported Tom Campbell for the House very
enthusiastically," said Cisco spokesman Kent Jenkins. "John was just in the
uncomfortable position of choosing between two capable folks."

But one Washington-based high tech source added Campbell was not considered
a go-to guy on the Hill if high tech needed something done. "Tom is a
really, really, really smart guy," the source said. "Tom's approach is
always rigorous and intellectually honest. Whether it always recognizes
legislative reality a lot of the times is another matter."

Also, oddly, Feinstein, the Democrat, has locked up most of the key law and
order endorsements in the state, while the Republican is the under-funded
intellectual running as a populist. Feinstein has an impressive list of
Republicans and traditionally conservative groups that are supporting her
campaign, but Campbell is hoping to cash in on some bipartisan appeal. The
campaign is scheduled to get a boost later this month from San Francisco
District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who is expected to endorse Campbell.
Sources close to the campaign say that other Democratic elected officials
are being wooed, and may end up endorsing the Republican nominee.

"Is it upside-down? Maybe on some levels because you go to traditionally
strong parts of the Republican base like agriculture where we're doing
pretty damn well," Kuwata said. "But we're also doing it in traditional
Democratic areas."

Though the race is not one of the key Senate fights this fall, it has
attracted its share of national media attention, due mostly to Campbell's
allure as a political character. In a recent column, syndicated columnist
George Will wrote "were Campbell to enter the Senate as Pat Moynihan leaves
it, he would inherit the title as the most interesting mind in the chamber.
He could be a broader-gauge John McCain, with more than the one-note
radicalism of campaign finance reform."

The same things that have attracted many of the media thinkers to Campbell
have alienated some of Campbell's colleagues on the Hill. Many of
Campbell's most strident enemies come from his own party. Since winning a
largely Democratic congressional seat in a special election in 1995,
Campbell has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the Republican leadership. (His
congressional district voted for Clinton by 16 and 18 point margins in 1992
and '96 respectively.) It started when he refused to vote for Newt
Gingrich's speakership, and continued through this year. With control of
the House on the line, and Campbell a popular incumbent in an otherwise
Democratic district, House leaders implored Campbell to stay put during
this election cycle, much to the delight of Democrats. Campbell won
reelection in 1998 by 23 points. Polls now show Democrat Mike Honda leading
Republican Jim Cunneen in the race to succeed Campbell.

"I'm sure some of his colleagues are saying, 'If you're going to have a
midlife crisis, have it next cycle,'" joked Feinstein campaign consultant
Bill Carrick in a conversation with Salon earlier this year.

Instead, the headstrong Campbell dove into the race last October to take on
California's senior senator. Speculation as to why he chose this year to
run ranged from the pragmatic to the paranoid. One theory holds that
Democrats -- who will likely control the state's congressional
redistricting process after the new census is released -- will carve up
Campbell's district before the 2002 election anyway, making it impossible
even for a liberal Republican like Campbell to be elected there. Another
holds that Campbell is making a sort of statewide dry run to boost his name
recognition so he can take on Gov. Gray Davis in 2002.

Yet another theory maintains that Campbell received an ultimatum from the
Stanford Law School, where he is a tenured professor, telling him to return
to teaching or risk losing his tenure. Republican sources confirmed
Campbell did receive an ultimatum from Stanford. While nobody thinks that
was the sole reason for Campbell's decision to take on Feinstein this year,
one source says "it certainly was a factor."

Campbell refused to discuss the Stanford question. "I've been very careful
to keep my private life private," he said. "Stanford University has been
not only fair but generous with me. I have no quarrel with them whatsoever."

Part of the decision seems to be based on the fact that Campbell has always
wanted to be a U.S. senator, where his professorial style and political
independence may go over better than it does in the raucous lower house.
Campbell's pedigree -- a masters in economics from the University of
Chicago, president of the Harvard Law Review, professor at Stanford Law --
and his intellectual disdain of the Washington power game, is a combination
often found in Democrats, particularly Democrats who have served in the
U.S. Senate. ("I cannot see myself trading a vote," he has been quoted as
saying.) Some of the same adjectives that are tagged to Democratic senators
past and present -- from Moynihan to Bill Bradley to Bob Kerrey -- are
often attached to Campbell.

"He is more of a senator by temperament," said one former Republican House
official, who also evoked the name of Moynihan in his description of
Campbell. "You get the sense that he is unwilling to go along with the way
things work a lot of the time."

Feinstein's Kuwata agreed with part of the official's assessment, minus the
Moynihan comparison. "I don't think that's fair to Moynihan," Kuwata said,
offering a comparison of his own. "Did you ever see the show "Family Ties"?
He's kind of Alex P. Keaton. You can picture him in grade school taking an
attache case to his class; he's a bit of a caricature. Don't think he cares
that much about getting things done.

But in the wake of John McCain's violent flare of a presidential candidacy,
Campbell is doing everything he can to cash in on the labels of "maverick"
and "independent" that have often caused him problems among members of the
House Republican conference. McCain has already been to California to
campaign and raise money for Campbell, and has cut a TV spot that will
likely run soon. Campbell said McCain may come back to stump for the
congressman, depending on how McCain's recovery from cancer surgery
progresses. In the meantime, Campbell is trying to run a McCain-esque
campaign, desperately trying to court the media, and running as a
nonpartisan political outsider who just happens to be a member of Congress.

Like McCain, Campbell is depending on the media to help introduce him to
voters since Campbell cannot afford to get his message out himself.

Campbell openly plays the "what if" game with his political career,
pointing out that he would probably already be a U.S. senator if it weren't
for the late Sonny Bono. In 1992, Bono, then mayor of Palm Springs, and
Campbell faced off in a Republican primary along with conservative Bruce
Herschensohn for the right to take on liberal Democrat Barbara Boxer.

"Sonny Bono ran and took 19 percentage points," he recalls. "I lost by a
point and a half. And that was in a closed primary." (Herschensohn received
38 percent of the vote to Campbell's 36 percent.) Bono, like Campbell, was
pro-choice and generally seen as a moderate. Herschensohn, a strident
conservative, went on to narrowly lose to Boxer, 48-43 percent.

In many ways, Campbell is a good fit for California. He is one of the most
liberal Republican House members on social issues like abortion and gun
control. While he touts his 100 percent pro-choice voting record, he is
equally proud of his title as most fiscally conservative member of the
House. The National Taxpayers Association has voted Campbell the member
least likely to spend taxpayer dollars. The same group voted Feinstein the
senator with the most extravagant spending habits.

But with the state in flush economic times, the presidential campaign
focused elsewhere, a popular incumbent opponent with high name
identification and no money of his own to speak of, Campbell is having a
hard time getting his campaign off the ground.

"There is a lot of perception that I need to rebut in order to let people
know who I am," he said. "'Republican' almost always signals pro-life. I've
always been pro-choice. 'Democrat' or 'Republican' tends to signal 'in the
system' and I need to let folks know I don't take PAC money. So it's a
function of asking people to find out about me and judge me on my own
merits against some perception they may have of me."

About the writer Anthony York is an associate editor for Salon News.