Prop. 187 Foes’ Has a Twist

With the tide of public opinion running vehemently against illegal immigration, opponents of Proposition 187 are playing out a long-shot strategy that boils down to the old maxim: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Of course, illegal immigration is a major problem, they concede. Of course, reform is needed, they acknowledge.

However, Proposition 187--which would deny most government services to illegal immigrants and require public health, education and police officials to turn in suspects’ names to federal authorities--would only make a bad situation worse, they insist.

In a smoked-glass building overlooking San Francisco Bay, veteran political consultants Richard Woodward and Jack McDowell are hard at work overseeing this delicate but pragmatic opposition effort on behalf of a broad coalition, Taxpayers Against 187, whose members range from the state PTA to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The Woodward & McDowell firm is among the state’s leading experts on ballot measures, having won the 1984 campaign bringing California its lottery and having defeated the 1990 “Big Green” environmental initiative.

But this time the firm faces a particularly formidable challenge, with far less time and money, while having to speak in a unified voice for a coalition of odd political bedfellows.

As voters begin focusing on the details of the November ballot, Woodward’s forces intend to hit them time and again with the following mantra: Proposition 187 could result in increased street crime and disease while costing the state up to $15 billion a year in lost federal revenue. Moreover, they say, it would result in an inevitable Supreme Court challenge while failing to address in any way the most graphic component of the immigration battle--the nightly dance in the dusty hills between Tijuana and San Diego.

“If we’re trying to solve illegal immigration, where do you do it? At the border,” said Woodward, who began his career as a Republican Party operative. “With this 187, there will not be one more Border Patrol person and not one more dollar spent” on beefed-up enforcement.

Woodward, while declining to provide specific details, said a recent random public opinion survey by his firm showed that support for Proposition 187 dips below the 50% mark once voters are informed of the key arguments for and against the measure.

“Our experience shows that once you get something under 50%, you’ve got a very good shot at defeating it,” asserted Woodward, who has not lost a “no” campaign in more than 20 years of consulting. “What we have to do, we have to be hitting on all cylinders in every form of communication.”

However, with the ballot measure boasting a lead of 30-plus points in the polls and the Nov. 8 election looming on the horizon, this task is daunting.

For one thing, illegal immigration is an emotional issue and the “no” coalition must persuade voters who are intent on making a statement to also consider the more nebulous long-term implications.

“It appears to me this is a message initiative, and those people who support it will do so no matter what and aren’t susceptible to reasoned economic or social debate,” said political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe of the Center for Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate School.

The hired guns must also help keep the “no” coalition focused on its central theme. That won’t be a problem for more conservative members such as Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, who time and again has expressed a visceral distaste for illegal immigration. But it’s not so simple a case for immigration rights groups, considering that the “no” campaign’s basic message essentially demonizes the very people they fight to protect.

“We do have differences,” said Robert Almanzan, MALDEF’s community affairs assistant. “But we all have realized that (the effort to defeat) 187 needs a strong coalition of all Californians.”

Most important to their success, Proposition 187 opponents must come up with the cash to communicate their message--primarily through TV and radio ads--in the dwindling weeks of a campaign that also includes races for governor and U.S. Senate, all of which could be drowned out of the public consciousness, and airwaves, by the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

“In the hands of a skillful consultant, there’s a lot of visual images and hot button fears that could be pushed,” said Prof. Bruce Cain of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. “But to do that, you need the big bucks.”

Four years ago, when Woodward & McDowell came from behind to defeat “Big Green,” the firm launched its efforts nearly a year in advance, boasted $12 million from big business in its campaign kitty and had an instantly recognizable target to kick around: then-Assemblyman and now-state Sen. Tom Hayden.

This time, the consulting firm didn’t come on board until July, has no conservative counterpart to Hayden to hammer away at and appears likely to have only a fraction of the campaign finances at its disposal.

Big businesses, which have frequently funded campaigns run by Woodward & McDowell, “are neutral--they’re staying out of it,” Woodward said.

So is the California Farm Bureau Federation, which represents many of the state’s largest employers of Mexican immigrants. “We felt it was so controversial on both sides we’d make enemies no matter what position we took,” said Roy Gabriel, legislative director of labor affairs for the bureau.

Instead, Woodward said, “we’re going to get money from labor, the health care community, education. We’ve already got money from small business, from Latinos, from Hollywood and the entertainment community.”

The first Taxpayers Against 187 campaign finance report is not due to be filed until Oct. 5. But when asked how much the “no” forces plan to spend, Woodward said they would need at least $3 million to $4 million.

Even that amount, he indicated, is not yet in hand.

A spokeswoman for the California Teachers Assn., which has raised the specter of its members being turned into snitches if required to report suspected illegal immigrants, said the organization is contributing $350,000 to Taxpayers Against 187. That stands in marked contrast to the $12 million the CTA spent to fight the school voucher initiative last year.

“It just isn’t the same kind of a proposition,” said spokeswoman Tommye Hutto. “School vouchers was a special kind of deal where members had a special assessment.”

Regardless, the contrast “is extremely revealing,” said Cain. “That tells you their money isn’t where their mouth is and it’s basically a token expenditure.”

The California Medical Assn., another of the more deep-pocketed groups in the coalition, has not yet determined how much money to contribute to the fight against the ballot measure, spokeswoman Danielle Walters said.

Ronald Prince, co-chair of the Pro-187 California Coalition for Immigration Reform, says proponents, due to limited funds, do not expect to undertake a television ad campaign of their own.

Still, the group’s message is receiving widespread exposure through the anti-illegal immigrant TV ads of Gov. Pete Wilson, who has endorsed Proposition 187 as part of his reelection effort.

Prince said he is wary about the possible impact of a major Taxpayers Against 187 television campaign. “I am concerned because they are trying to make it an emotional issue instead of just an issue of law,” he said.

But Prince added that he believes his side will nonetheless prevail because “we are the real taxpayers.”

With limited funds, the “no” coalition intends to take a multi-pronged approach to win support, said Woodward and Karen Kapler, the firm’s day-to-day manager of the Proposition 187 campaign.

“The key is understanding the initiative,” Kapler said. “It’s the only solution on the blocks right now and we (must) communicate that it’s not going to solve the problem, it’s going to make it worse.”

In recent weeks, the firm has begun efforts to educate an estimated 1 million members of state and local organizations, including church groups, that are opposed to Proposition 187.

The list of organizations and community leaders against the measure has mushroomed recently to four typewritten pages and includes the state School Boards Assn., PTA and teachers association, the California Medical Assn., the California Nurses Assn., the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the League of Women Voters of California, the Congress of California Seniors, Cardinal Roger Mahony, the American Jewish Congress, the Los Angeles City Council, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the California Labor Federation.

Woodward & McDowell operatives are also coordinating their efforts with another, less publicized anti-187 umbrella group, Californians United Against Proposition 187.

The latter organization, made up of civil rights agencies including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, is undertaking a get-out-the-vote campaign among occasional and newly naturalized registered voters.

Kapler said she has no problem working with anti-187 groups that may have varying viewpoints on immigration. “The more people out there actively involved, the better off we all are,” she said.

In the waning weeks of the campaign, the consulting firm, which will not disclose its fee, hopes to win placement on influential slate mailers. It also plans to hit the airwaves with ads likely to appeal to the pocketbooks and fears of swing voters.

With its limited resources, the coalition will not be able to mount a saturation advertising campaign, concedes spokesman Scott Macdonald. But Woodward is confident that his firm’s ads can still make the difference.

“In the four major markets (San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento and Los Angeles) you need $800,000 to $1 million (in total) to have any kind of an impact in a week’s time,” he said. “If we can get adequate funds, and I think we’re going to . . . we can win.”

At this point, not everyone, including one of the key spokesmen for the “no” campaign, is convinced of that.

“It’s crazy when you can’t inoculate children and when you put schoolchildren on the street,” Block said. “(But) I believe without question it’s going to pass overwhelmingly.”