Ed Fallon today attacked a bill that would ban politicians paying themselves with campaign funds as “status quo politics at its worst.” The bill was introduced because Fallon had paid himself nearly $14,000 with campaign funds after the end of his 2006 gubernatorial bid, making Fallon one of the most notable politicians to line his own pockets with campaign funds since Alan Keyes paid himself $8500 a month to run for Senate in 1992. Although Fallon claimed there was leftover money in his campaign account because “most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am,” Fallon had nearly $40,000 still in the bank at the end of his gubernatorial campaign. In a close three-race where you being outspent, saving that much money isn’t exactly fiscally responsible.
But then again, Fallon was considering running through November even if he didn’t win the primary. Although Fallon denied contemplating a third party run for Governor, an email from his campaign manager/business partner/very close personal friend Lynn Heuss to the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board stated that the reason that Fallon was paying himself after the Democratic Primary and had kept his campaign account open was because “there was also the possibility that he would decide to run as a 3rd party candidate” in addition to the need to perform administrative tasks. One wonders how such a miscommunication could occur between two people who are so close.
Although perhaps it wasn’t a miscommunication. Fallon already backed Ralph Nader in 2000 stating at a rally the week before an election “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t vote for Al Gore” and later condemned the Polk County Democratic Central Committee for asking all Democratic candidates to support the Democratic ticket no matter. Although Fallon later said he only endorsed Nader when Al Gore added Joe Lieberman to the ticket, his published remarks on the subject don’t address Lieberman at all and seem more focused on attacking the Vice President and future Nobel Laureate as “to the right of Bill Clinton.” As a result of the loyalty pledge, Fallon compared the actions of the Polk County Democratic Central Committee to the Nazi Party in a hyperbolic statement of utter tastelessness.
In fact, it seems more likely that Ed Fallon is lying again. Fallon has already spent the week obfuscating about the financial irregularities of his “business” I’m For Iowa. He told one reporter that he only took a small draw from the business and another that he was paying himself a salary of over $30,000 a year. However, Ed Fallon has been consistent about one thing. He refuses to disclose the financial records of I’M for Iowa, reinforcing the fact that there is something rotten in Sherman Hill.
But in the meantime, Fallon, the erstwhile crusader for campaign finance reform, is attacking a bill prohibiting candidates from paying themselves as “status quo politics at its worst” and hiding the financial records of I’M For Iowa from public disclosure. For someone who claims to believe in clean elections, Ed Fallon certainly seems to be running his in the muck.
David Yepsen was singing the praises of Chet Culver today for undermining efforts to allow teachers and other public employees the same rights as private sector employees. Apparently if this happens, there’s a chance that teachers may negotiate for smaller class sizes as part of collective bargaining and why would any Iowa school want smaller class sizes? Except, of course, that there is a definitive link between class size and academic performance among students. Yepsen also brings up the scary fact that the collective bargaining bill would mean more binding arbitration which Yepsen is sure means higher costs to government. However, Ed Tibbets in an exhaustive piece for the Quad City Times shows that binding arbitration only happens rarely. In fact, it only occurs in 1% of all contract disputes in Iowa. In fact, binding arbitration may work against teachers and other public employees union. While opponents of the bills claim that in arbitration cases involving school districts, teachers prevail against management 57% of the time (although includes a mere 63 cases that occurred over the past 5 years), the Quad City Times’ review of arbitration cases in Scott County shows the contrary and management prevailing over public employees almost 60% of the time.
However, this isn’t stopping the fearmongering. Far-right organizations like Iowans for Tax Relief are claiming (without any data to back up their claims, of course) this could lead to disastrous rises in property taxes, leading Iowa to become more like such states as Maryland, Kansas and Maine and less like such states as Alabama, Arkansas and New Mexico (which incidentally not only have the lowest property taxes in the nation but rank in the bottom for household income, percentage of those living in poverty, employment and just about every other indicator of economic and social health available). So why is Chet going against fairness for teachers and other public employees (along with virtually every Democrat in the legislature) to bathe in the good graces of Iowans for Tax Relief and David Yepsen?
One assumes this is political posturing, designed to strengthen Culver’s hand in his dealings with the legislature. After all, as the Sioux City Journal notes “Culver raised no objections with the substance of the bill, just the process by which it passed. Spokesman Brad Anderson said Culver was ‘not pleased’ that he wasn’t notified earlier, and felt the public should have been included in the debate.” This isn’t politics, it’s personal pique.
As a result, Culver’s annoyance with Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy, he’s fanned the flames of this issue in a way that has energized Republicans and hurt working people. Iowa Democrats have waited 40 years to pass progressive legislation and for Culver to show such pettiness by standing in the way is disgraceful and sullies an otherwise admirable record as Governor. As Jack Kibbie notes, one imagines that Culver will support the collective bargaining bill “because of his future. He’s running on the Democratic ticket, I presume.” But if Culver continues to stand against guaranteeing public employees the same rights as their private sector counterparts, he’ll be as good a fit on the Republican ticket as on the Democratic one.
Tom Beaumont wrote a piece in the Register yesterday probing some of the campaign irregularities that Chase Martyn uncovered last week. While both pieces reinforced the fact that something irregular was happening with Fallon’s group “I’m for Iowa.” Fallon answered questions about how much money he made from the group very differently in both articles. In the Iowa Independent piece, Fallon said “”I think both Lynn and I took a small draw on the business [I’m for Iowa], but again, it was just getting going”. However, Lynn Heuss, Fallon’s “partner” in I’M For Iowa said in the Des Moines Register article that “Fallon has drawn a salary of $3,000 per month from the organization this year.” This means either one of two things. The first is that Fallon lied when he said he only “took a small draw on the business.” The second is that Fallon considers $3000 a month to be “a small draw”, in which case one wonders if Ed Fallon learned accounting from Ramona Cunningham.
However, it’s much more likely that Fallon lied to Iowa Independent. In which case, one wonders why Fallon was lying. After all, if everything perfectly legal and ethical about I’M for Iowa, why would he lie about how much money’s he made from the group? Not to mention, if Ed Fallon is running a full-time campaign for Governor and I’M for Iowa can have no legal connection with his campaign, what is Fallon doing for I’M for Iowa that’s worth $3000 a month. Unfortunately, until Fallon makes public the list of I’M for Iowa’s donors as well as fully discloses all of the group’s activities we are only left to speculate.
Jon Corzine has recently introduced a plan in New Jersey to force many of that state’s 566 municipalities to merge together. New Jersey has almost no county government and most local governmental functions are performed at the municipal level. However, over the half of the municipalities in New Jersey have a population of less than 10,000 and the resulting map looks like that of Germany in the Middle Ages, a landscape speckled throughout by innumerable miniature jurisdictions, each of which have their own police force, fire department and school system. The result is a massive wastage of taxpayer money as services are duplicated and triplicated within miles of each other.
Iowa has a similar problem. Iowa has 99 counties with a median population of about 16,000. In a state with a declining tax base and a shrinking rural population, this is totally inefficient. The result is that the State Legislature is forced to subsidize many county governments who can’t bear the costs of having their auditor, recorder, attorney, etc. The reason that there are so many counties in Iowa was so that no one would be more than one day’s wagon ride away from their courthouse. In the age of the automobile, when most rural Iowans drive 20 miles to go grocery shopping at Super Wal Mart, it is strange that there is still a pressing need to keep a County Recorder so close at hand.
Iowa has no need for 99 county courthouses or 99 county attorneys or replicating all the functions of county government 99 times throughout the state. That is why County Consolidation is so important. County consolidation is a good government that both liberals and conservatives can support. For conservatives, it means reducing taxes and the size of government. There are basic efficiencies of scale that can be achieved consolidating services which will save rural taxpayers money. In addition, it reduces the size of government. For liberals and progressives, it frees up government funds to be used on health care or education rather than maintaining a multiplicity of deputy auditors throughout rural Iowa.
Having 99 counties is wasteful and archaic. If Iowa can reduce the number of counties down to 50 or even 75, it would easily save tens of millions of dollars every year and help reduce taxes throughout the state. It is sensible, it is logical and it needs to happen.
Iowa Independent just published a story that reveals that congressional candidate Ed Fallon has been hiding contributions to his political organization, IM For Iowa. Although IM for Iowa’s goal is “further develop a broad movement committed to progressive reform in state and local politics,” it is legally a for-profit partnership between Fallon and his campaign manager and girlfriend Lynn Heuss. As a result, IM for Iowa can take an unlimited amount of contributions and does not have to reveal its contributors or how it spends its money. However, it is highly questionable how a building a grassroots movement in Iowa for causes like advocating Clean Elections can be a moneymaking, for-profit entity. IM for Iowa does not sell any product or produce anything of tangible commercial value. People who give money to it have no idea where their money went. In fact Fallon admitted that he has been paying himself from IM for Iowa’s coffers, stating that “both Lynn and I took a small draw on the business.” Fallon compared his actions to that of former Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti who received a salary from Casey’s, a family owned chain of conveniences stores that is a publicly traded stock on NASDAQ and subject to a wide array of federal disclosure laws. IM For Iowa is not subject to any federal disclosure laws, let alone traded on NASDAQ.
Last month, Fallon attacked Leonard Boswell for receiving a $5000 contribution from an AT&T sponsored PAC and then for voting for one version of telecom immunity. Regardless of whether one morally approves of Leonard Boswell taking a donation from a PAC, it is both clearly legal and the donation is fully disclosed. The public knows who gave money to Leonard Boswell and has the ability to raise questions about it. Fallon’s conduct with IM For Iowa raises some serious legal questions but most importantly, it raises the question of who is giving money to Ed Fallon and what are they getting in return?
Fallon’s political reputation is that of someone who values principle above all else, even at his own expense. But when he’s running an organization like IM for Iowa that seems to be deliberately structured to avoid any financial disclosure that undermines everything Ed Fallon has seemingly stood for in his decade and a half in public life. On one hand, Ed Fallon stands for clean elections, on the other, he is engaging in political activity that clearly violates the spirit of the election law he considers far too weak, (not to mention the actual law himself). Ed Fallon needs to make public all pertinent records and tax filings of IM for Iowa immediately. After all, if he has behaved ethically and has nothing to hide, it would only reinforce his reputation for probity. But if Fallon does not come clean, his reputation for honesty will be permanently tainted, if not destroyed.
Former Speaker Pro Tem Danny Carroll is running for Iowa House of Representatives again. Carroll, once labeled a rising star in Republican circle was decisively trounced by State Rep Eric Palmer in 2006. This was despite Carroll running a dirty campaign that included push polls and libelous mailings. Carroll was also discredited when it was revealed that he had taken part in a scheme to defraud an elderly widow.
Although Carroll may have some added credibility due to his support of Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses, it still doesn’t change the fact that he’s a sleazeball and a swindler. If the best candidate the Republicans find for any race down to dogcatcher is someone with as little moral character as Danny Carroll, it shows the desperate straits that the GOP is now in.
The Drum Major Institute, a progressive think tank that promotes pro-middle class policies, released its congressional scorecard today. All of Iowa’s Democratic incumbents in both the House and Senate got perfect scores from the group. However, the record among Iowa Republicans on Capitol Hill was much poorer. Chuck Grassley voted with middle class families only 67% of time, Tom Latham only 60% of the time and Steve King received a score of only 20%.
While it’s not newsworthy that Dave Loebsack is progressive or that Steve King is far-right wing, it is significant that Boswell is receiving such a high mark from a progressive think tank that boasts such liberal luminaries as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Randi Weingarten, head of the New York City Teachers’ Union, on its board. Although the Fallon campaign has been arguing that Boswell is a “Bush Democrat”, this grade serves to shore up the argument of those who perceive Boswell as a strong progressive for the Third District and undermines the central premise of Fallon’s campaign. If all Fallon can campaign on is that Boswell was pro-war in 2002 and that he raises a lot of money, Fallon won’t have much luck in June.
According to a giant nationwide poll conducted by Survey USA, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would beat John McCain in a general election but only Obama would win Iowa. The poll consisted of separate statewide polls that gave Obama a win based on a strong performance west of the Mississippi River while Clinton’s win was based on strength in winning big states like Pennsylvania and Florida despite losing some of the smaller states that the poll thought Obama could win.
However, in Iowa, the poll shows Obama trouncing McCain by 50-41 while Clinton loses 46-41. Obama outperforms Clinton in almost every category in Iowa, save Hispanic voters, and even wins traditionally Republican Northwest Iowa. In fact, the poll shows Obama not just winning Northwest Iowa but winning North Dakota and turning Iowa’s western neighbors, South Dakota and Nebraska into swing states.
Now, this is just a poll taken 8 months before a general election and there still is a lot of campaigning to be done and any general election numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. But what the poll clearly shows is that Barack Obama has a distinct strength in the Great Plains, putting states into play for the Democrats that, with the exception of 1964, have been consistently Republican since the end of the New Deal. And this Great Plains region includes Western Iowa.
If this poll holds up, it seems clear that with Barack Obama and Tom Harkin on the ticket, Iowa Democrats have the potential to have an better year than 2006 and stand a decent chance at picking up the 4th Congressional District seat. This is not to say that Hillary as the nominee would be a disaster. But, in Iowa, the numbers seem to indicate that Obama has the best coattails for congressional and legislative candidates and the chance to even realign Iowa politics by weakening the Republican hold on Western Iowa.
John Deeth has a rather exhaustive rundown of what candidates have filed for state and federal office this year in Iowa but it’s worth noting two interesting trends that have emerged so far and what ramifications this might have for the 2008 election.
The first is that three Democratic candidates have filed in the primary for House District 13. This is an open seat consisting almost entirely of Mason City and is heavily Democratic leaning, although it is currently held by Republican State Representative Bill Schickel who is not seeking re-election. The prospect of a heated Democratic Primary for this seat should pump up turnout which will have a big effect on the competitive Democratic primary for Iowa’s 4th congressional district. In 2006, where there was a competitive statewide primary but no competitive local primaries, turnout in Cerro Gordo made up about 7.5% of Democratic voters in the 4th district. However, with the competitive State House primary this year as well, it should lead to a disproportionate increase in turnout in Cerro Gordo County. This means that Mason City, which is the second largest municipality that is entirely in the 4th Congressional District, becomes even more important in the primary. This probably benefits the candidacy of Kurt Meyer the most as he comes from neighboring Mitchell County and is already seen as one of the more credible candidates in the race.
The second is that Democratic challengers have already filed in two State House seats that weren’t contested in 2006 or 2004 for that matter. James Van Bruggen has filed in ultra-conservative House District 4 which consists of Lyon County and part of Sioux County. The district is currently represented by incumbent Republican Dwayne Alons. While the district represents what is perhaps one of the most Republican state legislative seats in the country, let alone Iowa, (Chet Culver lost the district by a margin of almost 6 to 1) two slim slivers of hope for Van Bruggen are that Alons may be complacent as he has never faced an opponent in a general election in ten years in the legislature and has made some terribly embarrassing statements in recent years as well. In fact, Iowa Progress has commented numerous times on Alons’s frequent inane statements. These include claiming that the ancient Maya were a race of giants due to warmer temperatures and that the invention of air conditioning means that global warming is not a problem.
The other challenger is Ron Rossman, an organic farmer from outside Harlan, Iowa, who is running against Jack Drake in House District 57 which consists of Shelby County, most of Cass County and a thin slice of Pottawatomie County. It is a much less one-sided district than House District 4, Culver only lost the district by a 60-40 in 2006. However, if the race is solely about local issues, Rossman has a chance. While Drake is from the small sliver of Pottawatomie County that is in the district, Rossman hails from Shelby County which makes up over 40% of the district. If Rossman has a strong local base to build from, he has the capacity to run a competitive race.
Although neither of these seats are likely Democratic gains, it shows that Democrats may have a chance at running a candidate in close to every seat this year. In 2006, 19 House Republicans went unopposed, although few were in competitive districts. One of those House Republicans who went unopposed was Mary Lou Freeman. Freeman was a long time incumbent Republican from a safe district in Northwest Iowa. However, Freeman died two months before Election Day. If there had been a Democrat who had filed, the Democrat would have won automatically. Instead, the seat was declared vacant and in the special election that followed, the Republican candidate won handily, easily defeating his Democratic opponent who was a 21 year old college student.
The other benefit of running candidates in every seat is that it builds up party organization in areas that had previous been ceded to Republicans and helps build a stronger base of Democratic activists and to turn out more Democratic voters. In a year that seems to be trending Democratic so far, this could yield a surprise or two on Election Day.
