Is the NAACP oppostion to Prop 8 fraudulent?

A lot of us have been puzzled by the NAACP's oppostion to Prop 8. Most responsible polling shows that over 90% of African Americans support traditional marriage and Prop 8. So why does the NAACP, the premier civil rights organization oppose Prop 8? The Protect Marriage Campaign may have gotten to the bottom of it in this story. Citing data from the Secretary of State, the Prop 8 people believe that the head of the LA Chapter of the NAACP has accepted nearly $200,000 from No on 8 through her Public Affairs company, AC Public Affairs, Inc.
According to the Protect Marriage campaign:

Campaign finance records reveal that Alice Huffman, President of the California State NAACP, the only major African American leader in California to endorse legalized gay marriage, has received nearly $200,000 from the NO on 8 campaign in “fees” through her company AC Public Affairs.

You can confirm the payments to ACPA by going to this link and scrolling down. The payments are listed in order of size, starting with the largest and descending. You will see a payment of $100,000 to ACPA on Oct 2, and another payment of $98,033.00 on Oct. 14th. These expenditures are classified as "Campaign Consultants."
Hmmm. I wonder what kind of consultation she did. The Protect Marriage story continues:

African American leaders throughout California were shocked when Huffman, as a member of the NAACP Board, endorsed the No on 8 campaign despite the statewide, unified voices of African American political and religious leaders in support of traditional marriage. Huffman has never taken a vote of NAACP chapters and members, which is customary before endorsing any state measure or proposition. Records show that Alice Huffman, through her AC Public Affairs Company, received $100,000 from NO on 8 on October 2nd of 2008 and another $98,000 on the 14th of October 2008.

Trina Williams, Vice President of Inglewood’s NAACP Chapter, said today that “no endorsement of ANY proposition is ever authorized without a resolution, a vote, and a majority vote of its members.” Williams indicated that to date, “the Inglewood NAACP has yet to receive any word from the national organization telling us to vote NO on Proposition 8.” Huffman appears in print advertising and mailers for NO on 8 along with one or two civil rights leaders supporting NO on Proposition 8.

“Alice Huffman has used her position without support of the vast majority of African American people and interfaith leaders in our communities in Los Angeles or California. It is very disappointing and misleading to say that she is representing the African American community or the NAACP, which is and has always been passionately in support of traditional marriage and traditional families,” said Williams.

So where is the outrage? Where are the drive-by media on this story? Did she agree to oppose Prop 8 in return for money? Or did the No on 8 people look around until they could find an agreeable civil rights leader (I mean real civil rights, not made up civil rights like gay marriage)? And why did she suspend the usual procedures of taking a vote of the membership?
According to Prop 8:

African American voters formed the largest supportive voting block for traditional marriage when it was on the ballot in California in 2000. Political experts anticipate that the African American vote will weigh in heavily on Tuesday, November 4th, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama. YES on Proposition 8 expects the turnout to be very helpful to its campaign.

No kidding! I hope the membership of the NAACP tells Ms. Huffman what they think of her! And I hope they vote Yes on 8!