Bruce Gibson's "Evil Genius in the Back Room," and Why I Predict Four Awkward Years in SLO County Government

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, refers to his long-time "campaign consultant," Tom Fulks, as his "evil genius in the back room."


Which is why, a few months back, I sent Gibson this email:

- - - -

Hello Supervisor Gibson,

I'm researching a story, and I was looking over your past FPPC 460 forms ("Campaign Statement") for this campaign season, archived at this link:

http://ssl.netfile.com/pub2/?AID=sloco (then search "Bruce Gibson" in the "name" search)

... and I noticed how your campaign paid a "campaign consultant" named "Tom Fulks" nearly $20,000 since last July.

For example, the form at this link:

http://ssl.netfile.com/Pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=149763209

... that covers from 7/1/13 to 12/31/13, shows "$10,000" to "Tom Fulks" for "campaign consulting."

Now, I notice how Tom has a robust on-line presence, including his SLOSense PAC Facebook page, at this link:

https://www.facebook.com/SLOSense

... where he describes SLOSense as, "Providing an online, reality-based, political information platform for San Luis Obispo County. Produced by the SLOSense PAC."

He also operates his own Youtube channel, at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SLOSense/videos

However, on both of those sites -- that appear to ONLY discuss SLO County politics -- I can't seem to find where Tom actually discloses the fact that the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign is paying him some $20,000 for "campaign consulting."

In fact, to the contrary, in one post, at this link:

https://www.facebook.com/SLOSense/posts/177545299098629

... Tom writes:

"In this case, it is clearly implied that SLOSense and me, Tom Fulks, placed an ad on Craig's List to recruit bloggers to do political work, and that I am paid by politicians to do this. I am not paid by anyone to do SLOSense and never have been."

Other recent SLOSense Facebook posts by Tom include discrediting D.A. candidate, Dan Dow.

For example, Tom writes:

"Some local Democrats, progressives, moderates and decline-to-staters appear to be succumbing to the 'apolitical' seduction of Dan Dow for District Attorney. Seriously?

With a whiff of carpet baggery and dirty tricksterism, this fellow (Dow) has been a hard-charging partisan for a long time, and appears willing to do whatever it takes."

and;

"... the Dan Dow thug-a-thon campaign for DA..."

Additionally, on his Youtube channel, at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SLOSense/videos

... Tom posts videos and commentary apparently with the aim of discrediting pretty much anyone that disagrees with his boss (you).

For example, he wrote:

"Addressing the SLO County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 19, 2013, this Los Osos resident exhibits classic brutishness, rudeness and dyspepsia. Stay classy."

... to describe a public commenter that is often critical of you.

So, here's my question:

Is that what your campaign pays Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars to do -- to sneak around on-line and discredit and character-assassinate anyone, or any news-gathering source, that doesn't portray you in a favorable light?

Because, I have to admit, that's exactly what it looks like -- you pay Tom BIG bucks to sneak around and destroy the reputations of people, simply because those people are critical of you, and/or don't align with you politically.

If that's NOT accurate, then please explain exactly what Tom's job is in your campaign, because, right now, all I see is your private, professional, behind-the-scenes character-assassin.

I mean, am I missing something?

As always, much thanks,
Ron
- - -

Gibson never replied, of course, but one of the people that I cc'd on that email, recently elected SLO County District Attorney, Dan Dow, did:

"Thank you Ron,
Interesting to say the least... And I am the one accused of 'being political' :-)

All the best,
Dan"

And that's exactly why I predict an awkward next four years in SLO County government.

I mean, here's Gibson (who was also recently elected to another 4-year term), shelling out FAT stacks (yo) to his "evil genius in the back room," Tom Fulks, to essentially fund Fulks' SLOSense (so-called) "PAC," and then Fulks uses his "PAC" to discredit anyone that's not 100-percent committed to his boss, like, apparently, Dow.

So, look how great this is, and how fun this will be to watch play out over the next four years: Newly elected SLO County DA (and Gibson's fellow SLO County government colleague), Dan Dow, is now VERY aware (thank you very much) that, (Democrat) Supervisor Gibson, pays Fulks BIG bucks to run around on the Internet and and do things like discredit (Republican-backed) Dow (BEFORE the election), by calling Dow things like a "carpet bagger," "a hard-charging partisan," a "dirty trickster," and "thug."

Which all gets back to my original question: What, exactly, is Tom Fulks' job?

Is it simply to get Bruce Gibson elected by sneaking around and discrediting anyone and anything (including news sites like CalCoastNews.com) that's not 100-percent committed to his boss, Gibson, OR, is his job to use his so-called "PAC" to destroy the lives of anyone and anything that's not 100-percent committed to the SLO County Democratic Party?

Here's what I'm getting at: Gibson isn't the ONLY left-leaning local politician that pays Fulks thousands of dollars to destroy their opponents and their opponents' supporters... uh, and just about anyone that says, or posts, anything slightly critical of Fulks' employers.

In his failed re-election bid two years ago, former SLO County Supervisor, Jim Patterson, also paid Fulks thousands of dollars for "campaign consulting."

However, unlike Gibson, Patterson didn't get his money's worth. He lost that election to Debbie Arnold -- a republican.

Of course, now, take one guess whose character Fulks hammers away on through his SLOSense "PAC?" Yep -- Gibson's fellow Supervisor, Debbie Arnold. ["5th District Supervisor Debbie Arnold giving Agenda 21 some love"]

Starting to notice a trend?: Local, left-leaning politicians pay Fulks BIG bucks to sneak around and destroy anyone and/or anything that's not on their side... including their own SLO County government colleagues! Awwkwaaarrrd.

On his SLOSense "PAC" Facebook page, Fulks writes, "SLOSense will register as a political action committee in due course, in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations."

So, with that quote in mind, and after Googling around to discover that SLOSense has NOT registered "as a political action committee in due course," I recently sent Zackery Morazzini, General Counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, this email:

- - -
Hello Zackery,

I'm researching a story involving PAC registration in California, and I'm hoping I can get a "ruling" from you (or someone else in your office) on a quick question. (I also think you are going to find this very interesting.)

It involves a local (San Luis Obispo County) "PAC" -- "SLOSense PAC" -- where, on their Facebook page at this link:

https://www.facebook.com/SLOSense

... it reads:

"Political Organization
Providing an online, reality-based, political information platform for San Luis Obispo County. Produced by the SLOSense PAC "

Now, the sole person behind the SLOSense so-called "PAC," is someone named, Tom Fulks.

He writes, at this 4/4/2013 link:

https://www.facebook.com/SLOSense/posts/114872788699214

"My name is Tom Fulks. This page is my idea and I am responsible for the (content)... I should have disclosed who is behind this effort early..."

and;

"SLOSense will register as a political action committee in due course, in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations."

and;

"As a political page, I (Tom Fulks) will be promoting a certain philosophy... "

and;

"Folks who understand FPPC Form 410 know filing it is not required until an (PAC) organization has reached the $1,000 threshold."

O.K. Now, with all of that in mind, here's where this gets interesting.

According to SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson's recent FPPC 460 forms ("Campaign Statement") for this campaign season, archived at this link:

http://ssl.netfile.com/pub2/?AID=sloco

... the forms show that Gibson's campaign paid "consultant," "Tom Fulks," nearly $20,000 since last July.

For example, the form at this link:

http://ssl.netfile.com/Pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=149763209

... that covers from 7/1/13 to 12/31/13, shows "$10,000" to "Tom Fulks" for "campaign consulting."

So, here's my question:

As long as local politicians continue pay "campaign consultant," Tom Fulks, tens of thousands of dollars directly to "Tom Fulks," and not directly to his SLOSense "PAC" (and, therefore, he never officially goes over that "$1,000 threshold" for PAC registration), does that mean that he never has to officially register his (what he terms) "SLOSense PAC" -- that includes "a political" Facebook page that "promotes a certain philosophy" -- and, therefore, he can just keep calling SLOSense a "PAC" without ever registering it (because the money's going straight to Tom Fulks, instead of "SLOSense PAC") and, therefore, will also never have to "comply with all applicable rules and regulations" for PACs in California?

In other words, as long as Tom continues to get paid directly by local politicians, he never has to do this:

"SLOSense will register as a political action committee in due course, in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations."

... right?

Thanks!

- - -

Morazzini never replied, so, about a week later, I sent him this follow-up email:

- - -

Hello Zackery,

I haven't heard back from you regarding my email from July 14, and I was just wondering if you ever received it? If you could just send me a quick note confirming that you received it, that'd be great.

And, as long as I'm here, I just want to show you, real quick, how important it is... well, for Democracy, that I get that email answered.

At one of my blog posts, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/plugged-holes-lead-to-closed-loops.html

... I exposed how the "Chair" of a local political "Committee" named, "Save the Dream Coalition," Pandora Nash-Karner, collected thousands of dollars in contributions to her PAC, and then turned right around and used her own PAC, to hire and pay her own marketing business, Pandora & Co.

Now, the ONLY reason I was able to expose that great story, is because the "Save the Dream Coalition" was an officially registered "Committee," and therefore, they had to file Form 460 -- the ONLY document that allowed me to break that excellent story.

So -- and this is very, very important -- if the SLOSense "PAC" HAS discovered some sort of loophole where they essentially use the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign to launder money for the SLOSense "PAC," and therefore SLOSense never breaks the "aggregate contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year" threshold required for registration, and therefore, never has to officially register as a PAC, and therefore, never has to file a Form 460, then I will have no way of reporting on 1) where their money comes from, and, more important, 2) where all of that money is going.

Which means that it is critical for my story, that I get this questioned answered:

Has the SLOSense "PAC" discovered some sort of loophole where they (read: Tom Fulks) can get paid tens of thousands of dollars by the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign, for example, and therefore never officially break the "aggregate contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year" threshold required for official "Committee" registration, which means they'll never have to file the required financial disclosure forms?

Is that perfectly legal?

Please, please answer... please.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

Morazzini never replied... again... of course (by the way, I call the FPPC, "worse-than-nothing") but I have a hunch that the weasily thing they -- Fulks, Gibson, Patterson, etc. -- do there, IS perfectly legal.

In other words, as long as Fulks continues to launder his "PAC" money through local politicians' campaigns (which, apparently, is perfectly legal), he'll never have to disclose what he's doing with all of that cash.

Is he hiring OTHER people to sneak around on the Internet and destroy the character of people that are NOT on his clients' side? We'll never know, because the SLOSense PAC doesn't have to file disclosure forms that would (or should) contain that information, because, technically, Fulks will never crack the $1,000 in donations threshold that would require him to file those forms.

So, what a SWEET deal for Fulks and his clients: Fulks gets paid BIG bucks to destroy anyone and anything that's not favorable to his employers, and he never has to disclose that that IS his job, as he would if he was an official PAC.

Sweet deal!

And, speaking of highly unethical non-disclosure, I have another question: Does Bruce Gibson inform his numerous individual donors that a HUGE percentage (about 40-percent) of their contributions to the "Gibson for Supervisor Campaign," is being laundered straight to "PAC" owner, Tom Fulks' pocket, where he then character-assassinates anyone critical of his clients?

Are Gibson's financial supporters even aware of the fact that almost half of their money is going to some shady, "evil genius in the back room" spinster, ala: Karl Rove?

For example, one of Gibson's financial supporters in this recently-completed campaign season was SLO County Superintendent of Schools, Julian Crocker ($100). By all accounts, Crocker is a long-time, respected member of the community.

So, did Gibson inform Crocker that a huge chunk of his $100 was going to be laundered to Fulks, just so Fulks can continue to skirt PAC regulations, and continue to destroy people's reputations simply because those people don't agree, 100-percent, with Fulks' clients?

I have a hunch that the answer to that question is, "No." (I'd ask Gibson that question, but I already know he'd never reply, so it's a waste of both of our time for me to even ask.)

[For the record: In the period from 7/1/13 through 12/31/13, the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign brought in "$27,809" in contributions, and then turned right around and cut SLOSense "PAC" founder, Tom Fulks, a check for "$10,000."

From 1/1/14/ through 3/17/14, the entire amount of donations received by Gibson was "$13,010." Fulks was paid another "$5,000" -- almost half of all donations received in the period.

From 3/18/14 through 5/17/14? Another "$4,000" to Fulks. The total amount of contributions for that period? "$15,650." Again, Fulks hauled in more than a third of all contributions to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign.]

Finally, one last, parting bit of fun:

Considering that Fulks (& Co.?) gets paid BIG bucks to sneak around and destroy anyone and anything (including media) that doesn't portray his clients in a favorable light, whadaya think is going to happen to me now -- now that I've posted this story?

I've got a bad feeling that Supervisor Gibson is about to get some good return on his "evil genius" investment.

###