California NAACP chief signs ballot argument, profits from campaign
Share
By Jim Sanders
Published: Thursday,
Sep. 16, 2010
sacbee.com
The California NAACP president whose ballot argument supporting Proposition 20 appears in voter information guides is being paid tens of thousands of dollars by the campaign to serve as a consultant, records show.
Alice Huffman has a long history of serving as a paid consultant for ballot measures endorsed by her NAACP group – she has received hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2005 – but Proposition 20 marks the first time that she can recall signing a ballot argument for such campaigns.
Huffman said she was not paid to sign the ballot argument sent recently to more than 11 million California homes but that her private business, AC Public Affairs, was hired by the campaign to contact other minority groups in boosting support for the redistricting measure.
"I feel like I have a right to earn a living," said Huffman, who receives no NAACP salary.
Her firm was paid $45,000 before filing the ballot argument, records show, and Huffman said it will receive $15,000 a month until Election Day – which would bring the total to more than $100,000 from April to Nov. 2.
Huffman said she will not work for any ballot measure opposed by the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Proposition 20 was endorsed by her group's seven-member political committee and later by its executive committee of more than 30 members, she said.
No wrongdoing is alleged, but the chain of events illustrates that state law does not bar signers of ballot arguments from receiving campaign funds, nor does it require disclosure in the election guides containing those arguments.
Nicole Winger, spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, said she is not aware of similar incidents in years past but has no way of knowing for sure.
Victoria Hoang, coordinator of No on Proposition 20, contends that Huffman's dual role in the campaign, as consultant and as NAACP president, does not pass the smell test.
"There seems to be a conflict of interest," Hoang said, adding that it could affect the credibility of the ballot argument. "I would definitely call into question why a signer of the ballot argument would be receiving money from the campaign."
Campaign consultants spend myriad hours poring over what points should be pressed in ballot arguments, and by whom, for maximum impact at the polls.
Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University, said voters have a right to know that someone signing a ballot argument has profited from the campaign.
"Absolutely," he said. "Is it likely to make a difference? No, because right or wrong, few people take the time to read ballot arguments and even fewer figure out who signed their names to them."
Proposition 20 is one of two competing measures on the Nov. 2 ballot that take aim at voters' decision two years ago to create an independent commission to draw boundaries every decade for legislative and Board of Equalization seats.
Proposition 20 would expand the concept by allowing the independent commission, rather than the Legislature, to determine California's congressional districts as well. By contrast, Proposition 27 would kill the commission altogether.
Huffman said the Yes on 20 campaign asked her, as head of the state NAACP, to help file a ballot argument countering allegations that district lines created by a commission could be unfair to minorities.
"I think they thought it was important that we have some response to that, and of course, being the NAACP, I think they thought I was a natural entity to do it," Huffman said.
Two years ago, the state NAACP supported Proposition 11 to create the independent redistricting commission. The campaign to pass the measure, pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, paid Huffman's firm more than $100,000 for consulting services.
"Redistricting reform is an issue that the NAACP has been behind for a number of years, and it's something that (Huffman) is continuing as president to support," said Susan Shafer, spokeswoman for Yes on 20.
Gwen Moore, a former Democratic assemblywoman now serving on the NAACP board, said Huffman's integrity is beyond reproach and that the group's support for Proposition 20 reflected a belief that it was good government and would allow more participation in redistricting.
"The fact that (Huffman) was able to work to further that goal, I don't have a real problem with it," Moore said.
Since 2005, Huffman's firm also has been employed by campaigns to fight a statewide ban on same-sex marriage, to support expansion of Indian casinos, to oppose higher tobacco taxes, and to assist drug companies in a ballot fight over prescription drug prices.
Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and a co-author of the state's Political Reform Act, said that besides permitting the hiring of Huffman's firm by Yes on 20, state law would not bar a campaign from paying someone directly to file a ballot argument, much as an actor might be paid to endorse a product.
Such payments could not legally be kept secret, he said. Voter information guides containing ballot arguments do not require disclosure, but campaigns separately must itemize expenditures.
"Presumably the opposition, if they think it's a big deal, will make a big deal over it," Stern said. |
