Democrats’ Candidates for Governor Slash and Parry : Van de Kamp: Attorney general vows to shine a spotlight on legislation generated by special interests.

SACRAMENTO — Democrat John Van de Kamp intensified his angry war of words with the “old-guard politicians” of the Legislature on Monday.

Standing next to the Capitol, where he hopes to serve as the state’s next chief executive, Van de Kamp promised that during this year’s campaign he will expose bills by lawmakers that are driven by special-interest campaign contributions--bills, he said, that “violate the public interest.”

Further, Van de Kamp said that if elected governor, he would require that all bills be screened with a “special-interest impact statement.” He said he would veto those he found owing more to money than merit. “All of them,” he added.

On the second day of his ritual announcement of his candidacy for governor, Van de Kamp continued to attack his Democratic gubernatorial rival, Dianne Feinstein.

On Sunday, in her hometown of San Francisco, Van de Kamp had devoted much of his campaign speech to criticisms of her.

On Monday, he charged that she had been part of an effort in 1988 to “confuse voters and prevent the imposition of limits on campaign spending.”

Feinstein’s campaign ridiculed the charge as “a world-class cheap shot.”

In all, it was a biting and accusatory day for Van de Kamp, who portrayed himself as the foremost white-hat crusader against greedy interests who control the state government.

He acknowledged that after his nearly eight years as California’s attorney general, “some will say we should have moved sooner on ethics.” He added, “I agree with that . . . (but) better now than later--and late is no excuse for never.”

Van de Kamp first picked this fight with official Sacramento last year. Describing state government as a swamp, he proposed a ballot proposition to limit the terms of office for state officials, ban honorariums and restrict other benefits.

Leading lawmakers of his own party responded by drawing close to Feinstein and seeking to undercut Van de Kamp’s financial support. Some hoped they could back him down from his drive to qualify his so-called “ethics initiative.”

To dispel that notion, Van de Kamp said Monday he periodically would use the Capitol as a backdrop for his attacks on the Legislature. “Each candidate must make a fundamental decision: Do you want to drain the political swamp or do you want to swim in it?”

As if on cue, swarms of small insects coincidentally rose from the grounds of the Capitol and filled the air as Van de Kamp spoke. Spectators swatted and giggled.

His arrival in Sacramento provided an unexpectedly tense moment. The campaign’s plum-colored Gulfstream turboprop charter airplane blew a tire on landing, giving off a trailing plume of smoke as it came to a standstill.

At the Capitol, Van de Kamp sought to provide evidence of special-interest legislation now pending before lawmakers. He cited a vaguely worded proposal recently offered by Dominic L. Cortese (D-San Jose), chairman of the Assembly Local Government Committee. The subject is the creation of new towns in California.

The attorney general said he was suspicious that lawmakers intended to sneak in last-minute amendments at the request of developers that would allow new towns that skirt local growth and planning restrictions to be established in Southern California. Such a ploy has been attempted in the past.

Cortese acknowledged that major amendments were planned to his bill, but said they were not designed to do the bidding of developers.

Van de Kamp speculated that by drawing publicity to the measure now, he probably forestalled any chance of special interests obtaining favored treatment. And he promised to return to the Capitol again and again, raising the same kind of public suspicions.

“I guess I’ve earned the opposition of the old-guard politicians. And I’m here to tell you I welcome that opposition,” he said.

He also delighted in noting that while Feinstein supported one political reform initiative that was on the June 1988 ballot--Proposition 73--he backed another--Proposition 68. He stressed that the Feinstein-backed proposition, which won the most votes and took effect, was written in part by Democratic state Sen. Joseph Montoya of Whittier, who subsequently was convicted on corruption charges and resigned his Senate seat.

“Together, they and many others did what they set out to do. They wiped out real political reform in this state,” Van de Kamp said.

Feinstein spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers responded, “John Van de Kamp has been attorney general in Sacramento for seven years. Why didn’t he catch Joe Montoya?”

One key difference in the rival proposals dealt with public financing. Van de Kamp supported the unsuccessful aspect of Proposition 68 that called for partial taxpayer funding of campaigns.

Mindful that more than half of Feinstein’s campaign has been self-financed, Van de Kamp said tauntingly: “I am against a system that permits wealthy people to buy their way into public office. Dianne Feinstein obviously disagrees.”

Times staff writers Jerry Gillam and Keith Love contributed to this story.