From Either Side of the Aisle, Prop. 140 Stands for Profound Change : If the Democratic Party had any sense, it would once again make party identification the key to getting elected.

Is it heresy that, as a progressive Democrat, I see a possible silver lining in the passage of Proposition 140?

Don’t get me wrong--I voted no on 140. But I did, with my partner, produce television ads for its less-extreme rival, Proposition 131. Frankly, I ran out of patience with the Legislature, despite its control by the party I most often support.

Yes, I know that legislators will now have less time to build a following and instead be even more inclined to buy one with campaign technology, that they will become more dependent on Sacramento bureaucrats, and that the revolving door between government and lobbying will turn faster, leaving legislators less inclined to offend those soon to be signing their paychecks.

Yet, ironically, the Democratic Party, apparently the biggest casualty of 140, could in the long run be its principal beneficiary.

Not so long ago, before TV spots allowed politicians to make air strikes directly into the homes of targeted constituents, most people voted a straight party ticket. Political parties stood for principles that voters understood. In the 1930s, for the most part, Democrats were the party of working people and Republicans were the party of business people. Parties represented different, and obvious, class interests. You didn’t need TV spots to tell what candidates stood for--the party identification told enough.

But with the rise of political advertising, especially TV and direct mail, the party of labor turned to the constituency of capital to get the means to pay for the new technology. Rhetoric aside, Democrats could no longer act on their principles; they were now feeding from the same trough as Republicans--special-interest funding.

It didn’t take the public long to figure out that Democrats were no longer struggling to alleviate voters’ economic distress. Californians watched legislative gridlock with increasing dismay and stayed home from the polls in droves.

Eventually, the Democratic leadership in Sacramento spent most of its time raising money to get reelected or to fend off Republican initiatives designed to take away their power. Of course, alleged Democratic leaders stopped leading years ago. Instead they accommodated to the needs of their funding sources. The party worried so much about its financial bankruptcy that it failed to notice that it had become utterly bankrupt politically.

If 140 has a silver lining for the Democratic Party, it lies in the opportunity to provide genuine political leadership. Jettison the current leadership. Accept the faster rotation required by 140, and the inability to develop well-known officeholders. Resist the temptation to become even more dependent on money. Instead stand firm for the economic interests of the many. Democratic candidates would then need neither fame nor money nor advertising to win. Being a Democrat would again suffice.

How likely is such a transformation? I’m afraid no more likely than voters reversing term limits, should Assembly and Senate leaders Willie Brown and David Roberti ask them to by placing a nullifying initiative on the 1992 ballot.