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.

###

Does Tom Fulks Work for poliARC?

TO: Paul Hughes, owner, poliARC

Hello Paul,

I'm researching a story, and I noticed how, on Supervisor Hill's latest Form 460 [attached], it shows numerous "Payments Made" (totaling about $10,000), to "poliARC - Paul Hughes, Grover Beach, CA," for, "WEB."

Now, on the Facebook page of local political... uh... "consultant" [finger quotes], Tom Fulks, Fulks writes:

"My name is Tom Fulks. SLOSense is my idea. I'm using programming help from PoliARC, which has done work for Adam Hill and a lot of other clients."

Additionally, about a year ago, I posted a piece on my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show how local politicians, like Bruce Gibson, and Jim Patterson, pay Fulks (from their campaign funds) tens of thousands of dollars to be their little, "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and other places, including behind-the-scenes places that the public can't see/hear), in a paid effort to destroy the reputations of anyone (especially media types) that is/are publicly critical of his clients, the local politicians.

[Quick, funny note here: That's WHY I put Tom's title of "political consultant" in finger quotes, because using the word "consultant" to describe Tom's job is WAYYYY too euphemistic for my taste. I mean, local politicians pay him tens of thousands of dollars to sneak around the Internet, and other places, to destroy the lives (or, at least attempt to destroy the lives) of anyone that's critical of his clients. That doesn't sound like "political consulting" to me. If you ask me, a much more accurate title for Tom's job?: "Professional character assassin, hired by local politicians." See? Funny.]

So, with all that in mind, I'm just curious: Considering that local politicians pay Fulks BIG bucks to be their sneaky, little, "evil genius in the back room," and that Tom writes that he uses "programming help from PoliARC, which has done work for (County Supervisor) Adam Hill and a lot of other clients," and poliARC is paid thousands of dollars by the Hill campaign for "WEB," (and, I'll hold the "[finger quotes]" on that classification... for now ; -), does Tom have any financial connection to poliARC?

In other words, is any of that thousands of dollars that the Hill campaign pays your company for, "WEB," making it to Tom Fulks' bank account? Does Tom do any... uh, "consulting" for poliARC?

Considering all of the overlap, it seems like Fulks could be Adam Hill's highly paid, sneaky, little, "evil genius in the back room," as well.

So, again, I'm just curious: Is he?

Thank you,

Ron

P.S. This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again : -)

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

"Unpaid" Trib political columnist question, please

Hello Matthew,

I'm researching a story, and I was recently reading your (interesting, and well-done) blog, at this link:

http://hoystory.com/2016/02/expansion-of-the-hoystory-media-empire/

... where you write:

"The local newspaper, the San Luis Obispo Tribune, has 'hired' me as their conservative columnist in an expansion of the Hoystory media empire. Hired in the 'you're doing this for free' sense of the word. I'm normally opposed to working for free because that devalues my work product."

Then, tagged at the end of your Trib columns, at this link, for example:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article67169732.html

... it reads:

"Conservative writer Matthew Hoy is a former reporter, editor and page designer. His column appears in The Tribune every other Sunday, in rotation with liberal columnist Tom Fulks."

Now, about a year and a half ago, I published a story on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show, using primary sources, of course, how local politicians, like County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, pay Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars to be their little "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere [i.e. The Trib]) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that is/are critical of Tom's clients.

Now, the editors at the Trib also call Tom an "unpaid freelancer," however, as I show in my piece, he's actually highly paid to do things like write his Trib column -- it is simply part of his "evil genius in the back room" duties. The twist, of course, is that his pay comes from his clients (i.e. local politicians, like Gibson), and not from the Trib, so, in Tom's case, when the Trib's editors refer to him as "unpaid," I always have to point out that that is more accurately described as "'unpaid' [HUGE finger quotes]."

Additionally, if you read through Tom's columns, you'll see that in nearly every column, Tom attempts to character-assassinate his clients' critics... you know, because that's exactly what Tom's clients pay him BIG bucks to do.

However, in your columns, I notice how you do not attempt to character-assassinate everyone/anyone that's critical of the conservative politicians in SLO County, so, I'm assuming that you are NOT being paid by local politicians to do their... uh, "back room" dirty work.

So, that's my question: Are you, like the Trib's other "unpaid" [HUGE finger quotes] local-politics columnist, Tom Fulks, also paid by local politicians to do their "back room" dirty work?

I have a feeling that the answer to that question is, "no," and, if so, then I have another question: Considering that you are "normally opposed to working for free because that devalues (your) work product," do you think it's fair that Fulks actually gets paid BIG bucks for his "unpaid" column, and you don't?

Here's a (cropped) screenshot of one of Gibson's 2014 campaign finance disclosure forms, that shows a "$10,000" payment to "Tom Fulks," for "consulting" [wink, wink], with thousands of dollars of more payments in several other of Gibson's campaign finance disclosure forms:

Thank you,

Ron

P.S: This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Trib editorial policy question

TO: Stephanie Finucane, Opinion Editor, The Tribune

Hello Stephanie,

Howya been? : -)

Hey, something caught my eye at the bottom of a recent Tom Fulks column, at this link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/tom-fulks/article51753295.html

... where it reads:

"The Tribune is seeking an unpaid freelancer to succeed conservative columnist John Peschong, who is running for county supervisor..."

Editorial-policy-wise, I'm a little confused by that statement.

My confusion stems from a story I published a couple years back, on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show, using primary sources, of course, how local politicians, like Bruce Gibson, pay Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars to be their little "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere [wink, wink]) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that are critical of Tom's clients.

And that's the source of my confusion. So, do I have this straight: According to the Trib's editorial policy, it's o.k. for a Trib local-politics-opinion columnist (i.e. Tom Fulks) to be highly paid by a county supervisor, for example, to do sneaky, "back room," uh... PR(?) for that politician (including in his Trib column), but not o.k. if a Trib local-politics-opinion columnist is actually trying to become a county supervisor, like former columnist, John Peschong?

Is that right? 'cause, I must admit, it really looks like that's the case, and, IF that's the case (and it really looks like it is), then that editorial policy has me scratching my head. I mean, of the two, wouldn't it be more journalistically honest to have the person that's trying to become a county supervisor be a local-politics-opinion columnist, instead of a sneaky, "evil genius in the back room," highly paid (by a county supervisor), professional spinster?

Sure, it's not the best journalism ethics to have a local candidate for public office also be a local-politics-opinion columnist, but that's WAAAAY better journalism ethics than having a sneaky, "evil genius in the back room," highly paid (by a county supervisor) professional spinster as a local-politics-opinion columnist, isn't it?

So, I guess what I'm looking for here is a journalism ethics lesson. Which one is worse: A local-politics-opinion columnist who's paid tens of thousands of dollars by local politicians to be their little "evil genius in the back room," where the columnist then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that are critical of his clients, or a local-politics-opinion columnist that's actually running for office?

Apparently, according to the Trib, it's the latter.

Thank you in advance for clearing up my confusion on this issue,

Ron

P.S: This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Really? Trib columnist, Tom Fulks, is giving up tens of thousands of dollars of "political consulting" work, just to continue to write his "unpaid" column? I mean, Huh?

Hello Stephanie,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a quick question for Tom Fulks, but I don't see a contact email for him in the tag line of his columns, so, I'm hoping that you would be so kind to forward this email to him.

Thank you! : -)

- - - - - - -

Hello Tom,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a quick question regarding one of your recent columns, at this link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/tom-fulks/article101129877.html

... where you write:

"The last time I was paid by (Supervisor) Gibson for campaign consulting work was June 2014."

I'm just curious: 2014 was the last time Supervisor Gibson ran for office, and, if he decides to run again, he'll likely be firing up his 2018 campaign sometime in 2017.

Now, as I've shown in my past reporting, for example, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... when Supervisor Gibson campaigns, his campaign pays you tens of thousands of dollars to be his "evil genius in the back room" (his phrase)/"political consultant."

Additionally, in his latest campaign filing, Supervisor Hill, in just the past few months, paid his "consultant," and your friend/colleague, Paul Hughes, of poliARC, more than $40,000 -- almost twice the amount of all contributions the Hill campaign received for that statement ["Monetary Contributions: $28,434.98"] -- with tens of thousands more from previous Hill statements going to your counterpart, Paul Hughes.

So, with all those huge stacks of cash in mind, I'm a little confused: When you write, "The last time I was paid by (Supervisor) Gibson for campaign consulting work was June 2014," are you saying that you have now somehow retired from your job as a "political consultant," and will now, for future elections, be giving up those huge stacks of cash that you are paid for your "political consulting" work, in order to continue to write your "unpaid" column for the Trib, or, when/IF Supervisor Gibson fires up his campaign next year, will you be giving up the Trib column in order to get paid the tens of thousands of dollars again by the Gibson campaign?

Trib Opinion page editor, Stephanie Finucane has hinted to me that you can't do both, understandably.

So, again, just curious: Next year, IF Supervisor Gibson fires up his campaign, will you be giving up the tens of thousands of dollars that he normally pays you for campaign "consulting" work, in order to continue to write your "unpaid" column for the Trib?

As always, much thanks,

Ron

Oh, and P.S: As usual, this email posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

- - -

[Thanks again, Steph!]

-- 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Dan Dow's "Disgusting" (and highly paid) Political "Consultant" [finger quotes] Question for SLO County District Attorney Candidate, Judge Mike Cummins

Hello Judge Mike,

I'm a SLO County based blogger, and I'm researching a story involving "slimy" "political consultants," like, locally, Tom Fulks and Pandora Nash-Karner, that get paid big bucks to sneak around behind-the-scenes during election season to (or, at least attempt to) destroy the lives of anyone that is not on their clients' side.

Now, I was recently going over your opponent's campaign finance disclosures, and those documents show that the "Dan Dow for District Attorney 2018" committee pays a political consulting firm, "Axiom Strategies LLC," tens of thousands of dollars for "consulting" [finger quotes] work.

And if you do a quick Google search, you will find that Axiom is headed-up by someone named Jeff Roe.

And, in that same quick Google search, you will also discover that Jeff Roe, apparently, is a very "disgusting human being."

For example, at this link:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/meet-ted-cruz-karl-rove-jeff-roe/

... it reads:

"Today, Broomfield (an opponent of one of Roe's clients) says he regrets not pressing charges against (Axiom). 'They’ll do anything,' Broomfield says of Roe and his associates. 'There's no limit.'"

and;

"In the 2006 election, (Roe's client's) Democratic challenger was 62-year-old Sara Jo Shettles, who once held a job selling ads for a science magazine owned by the parent company of Penthouse. The (Roe) camp accused her of having a 'Pornographic Connection,' and ran a TV ad that displayed a large 'XXX' beside her picture, as an announcer warned that she had 'outrageous values.' Roe defended the attack."

and;

"Roe didn't only target Democrats. During a 2006 state Senate race, he dug up a painful episode from the past of Joe Brazil, a fellow Republican running against Roe’s preferred candidate... In March 2007, Brazil sued Roe for defamation... 'Jeff Roe is a disgusting human being,' he says. 'He leaves a path of destruction.'"

And, at this link:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article16663127.html

... it reads:

"Days after the (Axiom produced) spot aired, Schweich took his own life. Some of Schweich's friends quickly concluded the ad played a role in the suicide and accused Roe of bullying the candidate. Former U.S. Sen. Jack Danforth urged Republicans to walk away from Roe, a request he repeated last week. 'We should disassociate ourselves from anyone who conducts this sort of campaign,' he said in an email."

and;

"(Roe has) hired operatives to track opponents with video cameras, leading some to complain of unnecessary provocation and to file complaints with police. His deep research into his opponents’ personal records is legendary. He’s been accused of orchestrating a lawsuit to gain access to a candidate’s personal papers."

and;

"Missouri state Sen. Mike Parson... repeated his sharp criticism of Roe's tactics last week. 'For some reason, we say it’s OK to win at all costs... But it's not OK to win at all costs when you've got to destroy somebody's lives… This has been going on for way too long, and it needs to stop.'"

And, at the following link, headlined: "Jeff Roe was the biggest loser in Kansas City's primaries":

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article17813666.html

... it reads:

"Four candidates for the Kansas City Council say they hired Jeff Roe's Axiom Strategies to help them win in Tuesday night's primaries... Roe, the badly tarnished Kansas City area political consultant who often uses slimy tactics to try to win elections, couldn’t help pull any of the candidates through to victory."

and:

"(Roe's client) Wright's loss was the most satisfying for people who are thoroughly disgusted by Roe and all he stands for in his often-shady way of running campaigns."

and;

"... in reference to Roe, Davis said people 'need to run that guy out of town.'"

and;

"Greitens (a Roe client opponent) wrote a letter to supporters calling out Roe and his allies specifically. He called them snakes. He said they were shameful and disgusting. 'Liars, cowards, sociopaths,' he wrote. 'They are often deeply broken and disturbed people, who — like criminals who prey on the innocent — take their pleasure and make their living by victimizing honest people.'"

And, at this link:

https://ericgreitens.com/our-duty/

... it reads:

"They ('slimy' political 'consultants,' like Roe [and, I'll go-ahead in toss in, locally, Fulks and Nash-Karner]) are drawn to politics as vultures flock to rotting meat—and they feed off the carcasses of vice. Every lie makes them money. Every fake website, fake Facebook account that spouts falsehoods makes them cash. They pay kids to follow you (and your spouse) around with a camera, and they often pay those same kids to shout questions at you—and in this they profit. They engage in the lowest of tactics, the most slanderous lies—and all the while their bank balances rise."

and;

"They stand in such stark contrast to the honest people who make up most of Missouri, that it takes a leap of imagination for normal people to even understand how crooked many people in the business of politics are. They are corrupt in ways that I didn’t know people could be corrupt."

Now, with all of that in mind, I'm just curious: Have you, during this campaign season, experienced any of that?

Have you, as an opponent of one of Roe's clients (Dan Dow), experienced any of the "disgusting," slimy," "crooked," "corrupt," "deeply disturbed," campaign "tactics," by Dow's highly paid, "broken and disturbed," "liars, cowards, sociopath(s)," and "badly tarnished" "consultants" [finger quotes] that, "to win at all costs," are highly paid to "destroy lives?"

Have you experienced any of that during this campaign season?

I (and, I'm sure, the K.C. Star, that I've cc'd on this email) would be very interested in hearing your takes, if any, involving Dan Dow's highly paid, "disgusting" "consultant" [finger quotes] (and, notice no "finger quotes" on the word "disgusting") Jeff Roe, and his Axiom "Strategies" [finger quotes].

If you have any questions, please just ask.

Thank you for your time,

Ron

- - - - -

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

P.S. I practice an exclusive editorial policy that I term, "Open Source Journalism," where I cc my reporting emails, like this one, to various media outlets and members of the public. I also post them on my blog, where I have already posted this email. It's at this link:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

If you choose to reply, I'll also publish your response.

Thanks again! :-)

###