The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) would be laughable if it weren’t so expensive and engaged in funding immoral research with borrowed money that I and every other Californian will have to pay back. The latest shinanigan was exposed by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which found that the wholly publicly funded (again, using borrowed money) CIRM hired an outside PR firm to deal with a news story its leadership didn’t like. From the Foundation’s press release:
Documents detailing the California stem cell institute’s involvement with a well-known “crisis management” public relations firm reveal an agency leadership worried about the state agency’s image and committed to keeping PR advice secret by channeling it through an outside law firm, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.And there was a little money laundering going on: The CIRM had the law firm hire the PR firm, and then funneled the payments from CIRM to the PR firm through the law firm—classic money laundering that made the payment look like legal fees:
The stem cell institute, a public body formed to spend taxpayer-approved funds on research, paid the PR agency with money funneled through the law firm, according to documents obtained by FTCR. The PR agency then apparently funneled its advice back through the law firm. The stem cell agency used the tactic to claim legal “confidentiality” on public relations strategies at a time of negative publicity over apparent conflicts of interest among board members.
Arrogance, thy name is CIRM.Under the deal worked out with Rubenstein, the PR firm received $10,000 for its advice on CIRM’s behalf. However the agreement is technically with Remcho. The letter of agreement with Remcho says, “As part of our services, Rubenstein will provide Remcho, Johansen & Purcell with strategic public relations advice and guidance relative to general corporate matters affecting the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine... Rubenstein’s work on this matter will be considered part of your work product and will be governed, to the extent permitted by law, by attorney/client privilege.” But the letter makes clear who is paying for the advice. It’s taxpayer dollars.
