It costs a lot of money to win an election in Monterey County. This year, the opponents in the Measure A race have raised a total of $1.42 million.

According to campaign finance reports, the Yes on A campaign raised $602,000 since Jan. 1 to push for its slow-growth Community General Plan Initiative. During the same time period the No on A campaign raised $814,992.

Between April 22 and May 19, the No on A team outspent its opponents on television and radio ads, spending about $189,337 compared to the $114,359 spent by Measure A supporters. Also during the last month, the No on A campaign spent about $122,038 on literature, mailings and postage—almost twice as much as the Yes on A campaign spent, about $65,013.

GPU 4 supporters also spent a good deal more on political consultants and PR experts. The No on A campaign reported spending about $53,793 on consultants and public outreach, compared to the Yes on A campaign, which spent $22,410.

Andre Charles, campaign manager for Plan for the People, the group that opposes Measure A, says the reason is simple. “It’s critical to get your message out, and that costs money,” Andre says, making certain to stay on message: “Our core message is that A threatens our future. It threatens our agriculture, our economy and affordable housing.”

Of course, Chris Fitz, a Yes on A spokesman, sees things differently. “Measure A is in the interest of people who work in agriculture,” he says. “In order to beat smart-growth initiatives, you’ve got to spend twice as much money. They are essentially having to deceive people.

“We feel good about it. They weren’t expecting us to raise as much money as we did.”

• • •

Andre Charles and Tom Shepard, the political consultants hired by Plan for the People, ran a campaign last year that led to the defeat of a similar land-use initiative in Santa Clara County, also called Measure A.

Cliff Staton, a Yes on A political consultant, says Shepard and Charles “put small farmers out in front, when it was big developers and the real estate industry funding the campaign.”

(Staton’s not new to the debate, either. He worked as a strategist for the Santa Clara County anti-sprawl ballot measure, which was defeated by less than 1 percentage point.)

In Santa Clara County, and in a similar land-use campaign in Sonoma County (which was also defeated), Shepard played up the “unintended consequences” of the smart-growth initiative. Shepard and Charles have done the same thing in Monterey County. This is because, in both Santa Clara and Sonoma counties, it worked.

Shepard’s website used to highlight a case study, called “Defeat of Sonoma County Rural Heritage Initiative (Measure I).” He has since removed it from his site. But in the case study, Shepard detailed that campaign strategy. Sonoma County voters had initially supported Measure I. Before Shepard entered the debate, polls showed the initiative leading by an 18-point margin, 46 percent to 28 percent. When residents were informed of the measure’s provisions and arguments in its favor, the margin of support increased to 31 points; it led 55 percent to 24 percent.

Shepard notes the top three reasons voters supported Measure I: to preserve and protect agricultural land and open space; to give voters control over development in rural areas; and to take growth and development decisions out of the hands of local politicians. (It sounds today as if he could have been writing about Measure A, in Monterey County.)

Then Shepard stepped in, and began his “preemptive strike” against Measure I. “First, polling showed farmers to be the most credible advocates for preservation of the county’s rural lands,” Shepard writes in the case study. “For this reason, farmers were encouraged to continue their high-profile role as spokespersons for the campaign.

“Second, builders and other development-related interests were discouraged from playing a high-profile role in the campaign because their involvement would have created an easy target for initiative proponents.

“Third… the No on I campaign mailed and phoned likely voters… describing Measure I’s unintended consequences that threatened the future of agriculture in Sonoma County.”

• • •

Shepard and Charles have used these same tactics in Monterey County. First, there was the hoedown press conference where farmers, ranchers, and wine makers wearing boots and plaid shirts (and flanked by bales of hay and heads of lettuce) condemned LandWatch and Measure A. Meanwhile, the California Realtors Association gave $187,600 to the No on A campaign. TV commercials and mailings tout the “unintended consequences” of Measure A, and how it will hurt local agriculture and affordable housing.

“This is definitely right out of their playbook: hide the developers and push forward the farmers,” Fitz says.

Next week, Monterey County voters will decide whether the strategy has worked again.