A few weeks ago, the board of the California Republican Party had a teleconference to discuss the mail program of the CRP. Assemblywoman Mimi Walters and the campaign on behalf of Proposition 90 wanted the CRP to include the yes position on all their mailing to GOP Voters. Prop. 90 is a popular issue and will motivate GOP voters to go to the polls.
Some CRP board members agreed and brought this issue up. Enter CRP consultant Marty Wilson. According to my sources Marty was insistent that Prop. 90 could not be on the slate unless they could find $300,000 to fund it. At some point I’m told he was verbally abusive towards the few board members willing to stand up on this.
The board with three dissenters gave carte blanche to Wilson to do as he saw fit.
Now I need to explain, I served on the board of the CRP for six years and I know everyone wants party’s help for free and of course that doesn’t always work. Things need to get paid for.
However, we all know the CRP is using Jessica’s Law, Prop. 83 in almost every media communication, not because they helped pay for it, but because it motivates voters. Prop. 90 should be thought of the same way.
Here is the REAL PROBLEM. This year CRP paid Marty Wilson $15,000 as a campaign consultant 4/17, 4/24, 5/08, 6/16,6/23,7,28,8/25,9/15 and 10K on 4/07 probably more I didn’t see and into the future. (he is also got money in 2005 too,) That’s a nice piece of change.
What the Board and the rest of the CRP membership didn’t know was that four days before the conference call Marty Wilson’s company Wilson-Miller took $15,000 from the No on Prop. 90 campaign for consultanting. So while, Marty Wilson was explaining and berating board members into making sure Prop. 90 was NOT on the CRP mailers, he was on two payrolls at once.
I know I’m not a great speller, But I think it is spelled a conflict of interest.
I don’t know if the CRP is getting their money’s worth in consulting, but the No on 90 folks sure are.
[Attached is a .pdf file showing the $15,000 consulting payment to Marty Wilson’s firm on the No on 90’s latest campaign disclosure statement.]
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This is where Adam Probolsky says…”There is no conflict of interest in politics.”
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Did Mr. Wilson disclose his new client to the CRP board? If not, then he has some explaining to do.
The CRP should immediately get off the dime and use Prop. 90 to motivate voters. Even Democrats support Prop. 90. This issue is a winner.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
http://www.ChuckDeVore.com
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Chuck is right! Prop. 90 is a winner and the CRP should be out front promoting it! CRP’s taking the lead on this issue can only mean more votes for the Republican ticket overall.
Mimi Walters should get lots of kudos for her leadership in this area too.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Dana Reed is right. No chance of jail time for Wilson here. Good for him for making a buck.
But Chuck’s point is valid. If I were a CRP board member and wasn’t informed of Wilson’s no on 90 consulting agreement I would feel dupped.
More imporant, if the Party staff or top leadership knew about it and didn’t tell the others, that would be good reason for the board to be pissed.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
And just to throw a bit more gasoline on the fire, Senator McClintock and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association spent about $85,000 on polling and research to show that eminent domain reform is a BIG winner: Not only motivating our base, but dividing the other side.
So far the phones have not run with anyone from the party asking to see the data!
Prop 90 is going to pass on November 7th by a wide margin and it will be sad if the CRP does not use it to increase their victories up and down the state.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Mike, I disagree with your version of the real problem. Everyone on the CRP Board already knew what Marty Wilson was and they have seen his type before. Some have probably paid for the services of people like him. He wasn’t fooling anyone.
The real problem is that only 3 members of the Board of Directors were willing to stand up for what they all knew was right.
The other problem is that the other Board members expect us to forget this incident when they run for office in four months.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:00 am
No chance of jail time for Wilson here. Good for him for making a buck.
—-
I’m no longer a Californian and I therefore don’t have a dog in this race, but from Mike has shared, whether it’s ILLEGAL is irrelevant. What’s WRONG is not necessarily ILLEGAL, and vice versa.
The situation Mike has described is a consultant with conflicting fiduciary duties. If putting a given ballot measure on CRP literature will help lift the GOP ticket, but hurt a client wanting to kill that ballot measure, the consultant has a duty to disclose the conflict to both clients – not ram a solution down the throat of one client that will help another. Of course, that might mean this guy would have to let someone else take over one contract or the other. God forbid.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
This is a disgrace. I have started a petition to have Marty Wilson fired as a consultant for the CA GOP. He should also return all GOP money since taking the No on 90 job.
His interest obvious lie elsewhere and there is NO DOUBT that Prop. 90 can be used to motivate independents and conservatives.
Here is the petition, sign it today!
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/FireMartyWilson