My understanding is that William Donehue is NOT an employee of the company, but is a PARTNER, which means he is not “under” Tompkins, but his equal. My guess is they each bring their own business to the consulting company, and the company provides common services to the clients of both men.
I think pointing out the fact that Donehue was Tompkin’s partner was a rational and acceptable thing, and chiding Romney for the incident was OK as well, since there was a “connection”.
But I am very wary of these attacks on “associations”, because I’ve seen them used too many times to “associate” people unfairly, mostly to attack good republicans who are successful and therefore have associated with a lot of people over the years.
If there was any evidence at all that Donehue needed Tompkin’s approval for what he did, that would make Tompkins at least indirectly “responsible”. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Donehue is listed as an "Associate Consultant and Vice President" for Tompkins/Thompson/Sullivan, a "Partner/Consultant" for Under the Power Lines, and an "Associate" for Mark Direct. Taking these titles at face value, it would appear that Donehue had a subordinate relationship to Warren Tompkins at both Tompkins/Thompson/Sullivan and Mark Direct.
At Under The Power Lines, as a "Partner/Consultant", the relationship to the founder Tompkins is not crystal clear. However, judging from the context of the other relationships, do you think it would be reasonable to assume that Donehue was subordinate to Warren Tompkins at Under the Power Lines as well?