Hunter Denies Political Motivation in Her Mailing Just Before Primary

Arguing that her reelection campaign was hurt, not helped, by a deluge of state-paid mailings just before last week’s primary, Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter on Monday denied that the letters were politically motivated by saying: “I’m not that stupid.”

Though her primary opponent calls the last-minute mailings “a sneaky, unethical stunt” that contributed to Hunter’s narrow victory, Hunter (R-Bonita) contends that a simple fluke in timing, not political designs, caused the letters to reach more than 13,000 76th Assembly District homes in the final days before the June 5 race.

Moreover, Hunter, conceding that some voters probably suspected the political motivations that she denies existed, speculates that the letters actually cost her votes in her Republican primary campaign against anti-abortion activist Connie Youngkin.

“Are you kidding? Are you absolutely kidding?” Hunter said when asked whether the mass mailing bolstered her own campaign. “With all of the questions of ethics in a campaign? You don’t think that can hurt? It hurt very much. It had no positive impact on me. It probably cost me two points in the race. That’s my assessment of it. I would never plan on something that foolish. . . .That is so stupid, and I’m not that stupid.”

In what could be the opening salvo in an acrimonious general election campaign, Democrat Stephen Thorne, Hunter’s opponent in November, has a pointed rejoinder to her explanation.

“All I can say is it was either stupid or sinister,” Thorne said Monday. “And, if she says she’s not stupid, I’ll take her word on that. So where does that leave us?”

Both Thorne and Youngkin complain that Hunter’s mass mailing violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Proposition 73, a campaign funding measure approved by statewide voters in 1988. Among its other provisions, the measure prohibits state legislators from sending more than 200 substantially similar letters to constituents more than once per month.

In a deliberate attempt to circumvent that limit, Hunter’s letters were sent to 67 groups of 76th District residents in batches of 199 or less. That technique--a loophole also exploited by other legislators, though perhaps not so close to an election--allowed Hunter to mail out roughly 13,300 letters on subjects ranging from child care and fire safety to earthquake survival tips and advice on choosing a swimming pool contractor.

Dated May 31, the letters arrived in 76th District mailboxes in the final days before the primary--reason enough, Youngkin argues, to view them as “misuse of public office for campaigning.” Based on bulk mailing rates, Hunter’s letters cost about $1,700 in postage.

Hunter said she is not surprised that voters might suspect that the mailings were sent out at state expense to help her campaign--because, in their position, she probably would feel the same way.

“If I got a mailing like that from an official in office, that’s how I would look at it,” Hunter acknowledged.

But the first-term legislator blamed the controversy on a quirk of timing in her office’s use of a special computer program designed to reach constituents in order to give advice or solicit their views on myriad issues.

Since her election last October in a special runoff that drew national attention as a referendum on abortion, her staff has persistently tried and eventually received approval from the Assembly Rules Committee for the purchase and operation of the computer program, which requires special wiring and training, Hunter explained.

The object of the program, called the Monarch Constituent Correspondence System, is to identify households by geography or demographics, thereby allowing tailor-written letters to be targeted to individuals who share common interests or positions on crucial issues. Although that technology is an obvious asset to any incumbent, the challenge facing officeholders is to capitalize on it while simultaneously staying within the confines of Proposition 73.

A member of her staff who was responsible for the program, Hunter said, “did not think of the political implications of sending those letters out during the month of May.”

“Unfortunately for me, (the letters) . . . hit the weekend of the race,” she said.

Reiterating her contention that the letters were not beneficial in her campaign, Hunter added: “Let’s be real here. I don’t need name ID. That’s the last thing in the world I need. I probably have more name ID than any person in this Assembly, except for maybe (Assembly Speaker) Willie Brown.”

However, Democrat Thorne scoffingly dismisses Hunter’s explanations about both the timing and the political impact of the letters.

“What is it the Church Lady says on Saturday Night Live: ‘How conveeenient !’ ” said Thorne, who lost in last year’s 76th District special primary and will be a heavy underdog this fall in the lopsided Republican district.

“It’s ludicrous for her to say this didn’t help her,” Thorne added. “It’s crystal clear to me that she was trying to influence voters through these letters, and, in a very close election, she may have succeeded. If only 10% of the people who got these mailers voted for her, that might have changed the outcome.”

In last week’s GOP primary in the North San Diego County-Riverside County district, Hunter defeated Youngkin by a narrow 51.6%-48.4% margin. Though about 3,500 absentee ballots remain to be counted in Riverside County, Riverside Registrar of Voters Frank Johnson estimated Monday that only about 400 of those ballots are within the 76th District--too few for Youngkin to overcome her current 1,731-vote deficit.

“It’s never any single factor that changes an election,” said Youngkin supporter Barry Jantz. “But, when it’s this close, it’s not overstating it to say that these mailings at the last minute may have done it.”

Kelley Farris, Hunter’s administrative assistant and the staffer responsible for the mailings, insisted Monday that neither she nor the assemblywoman did anything improper.

“I don’t think it is something the Assemblywoman is or should be apologizing for,” Farris said. Asked why neither she nor Hunter considered the political consequences of the mailers’ timing, Farris replied: “So what? You’re still trying to reach the constituents. I don’t care if it is right before the election. (But) if we would have known what the ramifications would be, we certainly would not have done it until after the election.”

The May 31 letters were the first ever sent by Hunter’s office under the Monarch program and were not targeted to a specific group, but rather sent randomly to both Republicans and Democrats throughout the district, Farris said.

“If we can know what the people of the 76th Assembly District are thinking, then they can be better represented,” Farris said.

The letters sent out by Hunter touched on a wide range of issues, including crime, transportation, aids for blind voters, education funding, auto repairs, credit-card billing problems, sexual assault and car-pooling. Often, the letters explained Hunter’s own position on the issues, as well as encouraging constituents to contact her district office for assistance.

“Just what the voters needed to know the day before the election,” Thorne said mockingly.

Farris said that she discussed details of the mailings with Hunter, including when the “drop” was to be made and the May 31 date on the letters. But the assemblywoman said Monday that the first time she learned that the letters had gone out was when she received one at her home.

Robert Connelly, chief administrative officer of the Assembly Rules Committee, said Monday that his office sees that legislators do not break Proposition 73’s prohibitions against mass mailings. The prevailing interpretation of the ballot measure, Connelly said, is that legislators cannot send “substantially similar” letters to 200 or more people, and they cannot use a form letter more than once a month.

Proposition 73 repealed parts of the law that would have prohibited Hunter from sending the mailings so close to Election Day. Under the old government code, legislators were unlimited in the number of letters that they could send to constituents, but were prohibited from sending out mailings between when they filed as candidates and the general election--a provision designed to prevent them from using their official position to influence their reelection.

Hunter’s controversial mailing, however, has revived that debate from San Diego to Sacramento, beginning with Youngkin’s eleventh-hour cries of foul and continuing with Thorne’s plan to file a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Within political circles, the major question being asked is whether the episode illustrates a clever gambit that stretches, but does not break, the law or an ill-advised stratagem that violates the measure’s intent.

“It’s both,” concluded political consultant David Lewis, who was uninvolved in the 76th District race.