The Millionaires Club Is Off and Running : Politics: We’d be better off if half our statewide offices were appointed rather than elected.

This year will see the largest change in statewide officeholders since the 1974 election that swept Jerry Brown and a raft of new faces to Sacramento.

More than two dozen people are considered serious candidates for the seven offices below the level of governor that will be on the June primary ballot.

While the candidates differ in many ways, coming from backgrounds that are humble and wealthy; of heritages that are Asian, African, Latino and European, and from professions ranging from dairy farmer to investment banker to professional politician, they all have one thing in common. Between now and June 7, they will have to think a lot about money.

They will spend most waking moments trying to raise the minimum $1 million said to be necessary to run a credible statewide campaign in California. They will use the money trying to get the attention of millions of voters who will have almost no other way of finding out who they are and what they think.

This is the first statewide election in which the reality of term limits ending a legislative career is a factor in deciding to run statewide. Candidates no longer have to trade off the danger of losing a “safe seat” to take a risk and run statewide. They are losing their seats anyway, so 11--almost 10% of the Legislature--are running for statewide office.

Controller Gray Davis, who made his first statewide quest in 1974 with a run for treasurer, now wants to be lieutenant governor. In the minds of many, Davis served as “shadow” governor during his long tenure as Jerry Brown’s chief of staff. Davis has spent 20 years courting major Democratic givers and has already stockpiled $1.8 million. This has driven potential opponents out of the Democratic field.

That opens up controller, and there are several candidates in both parties who want that office. Political strategists think that Bel-Air businesswoman and former Ross Perot enthusiast Kathleen Connell, a Democrat, might be hard to beat because she has said that she is prepared to put $1 million of her own into the race.

John Morris, a Republican candidate for controller, is a Los Angeles businessman and son of the founder of Mervyn’s store chain. He is reported to be contributing $500,000 to his campaign--enough money to get everyone else to take notice.

The two join a list of millionaires who self-finance the bulk of their campaigns, including Rep. Michael Huffington (R-Santa Barbara), running for the U.S. Senate, and state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), running for governor.

What is all this effort for anyway? Three of the statewide offices--secretary of state, treasurer and controller--are essentially administrative functions. They should not be elected positions but appointments of the governor. The main things that would be lost are the steppingstone function of the jobs for those with higher aspirations and the parking-place aspect to keep legislators we are trying to send home on the Sacramento payroll.

The $1-million money scramble would thus be somewhat diminished, and taxpayers might save a little money by doing away with some of the paid staff that go with the offices.

The positions of lieutenant governor and attorney general, which carry clear policy duties, should continue to be elected.

Of the two nonpartisan statewide offices, the post of insurance commissioner should remain elective--California’s unresolved insurance issues would benefit from high-visibility scrutiny. But the superintendent of public instruction should be appointed by the governor. The President appoints the secretary of education and takes responsibility for education standards nationwide. Here in California, we allocate more than 50% of the state budget to education. With the dire need for reform, the governor should not be able to sidestep the issue. Also, making the superintendent appointed might reduce the influence of teachers’ unions and result in more school innovation.

This is all wishful thinking for the next go-round. This year, the starting bell has rung. Political junkies are evaluating the field; consultants and pollsters are trying to get hired by the candidates who will have the most money.

If history is a guide, the June winners will be those who are personally the wealthiest or who have been the most successful in pleasing big-money lobbyists or individual donors. Not a good way to pick the future leadership of the biggest, most important state in our land.