Small towns in Iowa have always feared losing their schools. While businesses can always come back to Main Street, once the school has left, it is gone forever and a large part of town goes with it. Typically, the loss of the school is the tipping point that sends a town into an oblivion from which, it will almost certainly never return. It is this tension that is animating the current conflict over the state’s decision to close the school in Russell Iowa, a town of less than 600 in Lucas County. The school district, (which is most clearly outlined on this map of the neighboring Chariton school district) is the 19th smallest in the state and represents an area with exactly 750 active registered voters.
The state is closing the school chiefly because the school district has continually run into budget issues and is projected to have a budget deficit of $382,000 by the end of the school year (which is a very significant debt for a school district with five fourth graders and a graduating class of 12.) The school also had other non-compliance issues including a lack of handicapped-accessible facilities as well.
Locals are claiming a conspiracy to shut down the school. The Russell School Board President told the Ottumwa Courier, “It became clear to me their goal was to shut us down…I started to think to myself that this was a sham. I think that was their agenda from the beginning: Shut us down.” However, while the local residents of Russell rail about a plot by the State Board of Education to shut down their schools, they aren’t addressing the most important issue, their children’s education. According to the State Board of Education, eight of the school district’s teachers were not properly licensed in one of the smallest school districts in the state.
It seems what is neglected in this is the basic fact that this is about the education of the children of Russell. While having its own school may help sustain a small town, it doesn’t help the children who attend the school. In such a small and limited school, one can’t imagine that there are many AP classes or opportunities for advanced instruction. Parents are forced to choose between dooming their town and handicapping their children in life. It is a tragic choice. But, in the end, whether Russell, Iowa continues as a small town of 559 instead of a settlement much smaller is not worth impeding the education of one child.
As much there was the hope that something would emerge to comment upon, other than Ed Fallon’s continued trawl through the gutters of dishonesty, sleaze and self-aggrandizement, it is disappointing that it is just Fallon’s political tone-deafness. Barney Frank, as the first openly gay man in Congress, has led the effort to pass a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. However, to get the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, Frank had to allow a compromise that removed the ban on discrimination based on gender identity from the bill. As a result, Ed Fallon is outraged about the first gay rights bill in history to be passed by House of Representatives and believes that the first openly gay man in the U.S. Congress is betrayed the cause of gay rights.
In addition, Fallon attacks Leonard Boswell for voting for the bill. Apparently, Boswell’s support for this compromise “calls into question how forcefully he’ll seek full equality for the GLBT community in the future.” In other words, Ed Fallon is attacking Leonard Boswell for being insufficiently pro-transsexual. Apparently, Boswell joining with Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians wasn’t enough for Ed Fallon. Fallon would rather have no protections instead of a compromise.
Aside from pointing out the Republican negative ads against Fallon write themselves, this shows the fundamental political flaw with Fallon. (Besides, of course, the sleaze and dishonesty). Fallon seems to think that unless something is perfect, it’s wrong. He ignores compromise and bathes the sense of self-righteousness that enables him to believe that his IM For Iowa slush fund is perfectly legitimate and that a clean elections advocate can make up statements from the FEC. If Iowans want a Congressman who values ideological purity over getting things done, they already have Steve King and at least we know where King’s money is coming from.
Ed Fallon has attacked the attempt to close the “Fallon Loophole,” the practice of professional politicians paying themselves salaries with campaign funds, as “status quo politics at its worst.” As laughable as this statement may be, Fallon’s own reprehensible actions show why the legislature must take action.
While Fallon defend paying himself from campaign funds by stating “Most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am. They finish in the red. I managed to finish in the black,” Fallon was lying at the time. According to an amended campaign finance report filed by his gubernatorial campaign the very same day his quote appeared in the Des Moines Register, Fallon for Governor was $21,225.51 in debt. This debt had been growing since the end of the campaign, mostly fueled by Fallon’s salary, although significant payments were also made to Fallon’s girlfriend, Lynn Heuss and Fallon’s daughter Fionna received smaller payments as well. While Fallon was an advocate for Iowa’s “Mom and Pop businesses” while running for Governor, he never made it clear that he considered his campaign to be one of those businesses.
It is behavior like this that shows why the legislature needs to stop other politicians from following in Ed Fallon’s sleazy footsteps. After all, a ban on this sort of activity was a fundamental part of the ethics reform legislation that Barack Obama passed in Illinois. But unfortunately, the legislature can’t protect everyone from Fallon’s serial profligacy. His campaign has less than $3000 in net assets and a payroll of roughly $40,000 a month and Fallon already has a history of leaving his campaigns deep in debt. If I was a Fallon staffer, I would insist on getting paid in cash.
While most of the attention paid to Iowa fundraising numbers in the first quarter of this year went to the 3rd District primary, it’s worth noting that there is a Democratic primary in the 4th District too. However, the haul for Democrats there was much less promising. Two of the candidates, William Meyers and Kevin Miskell have not even filed reports with the FEC. This is a sign that they have either not raised enough money to need to file reports or they are too incompetent to get their information in on time. One suspects that the former is the case but no matter what the scenario, it does not mark them as promising candidates in the primary (let alone in a general election against a well-funded long-time incumbent).
Of the remaining two candidates, Kurt Meyer raised $130,000 but, of that sum, $100,000 came from Meyer himself. Of the remaining $30,000, there are two noteworthy donors. The Mitchell County Democratic Party gave Meyer $500 and 2006 Democratic nominee for the 4th District, Selden Spencer, gave $250. It is also worth noting that 85% of Meyer’s itemized donations came from out of state. However, Meyer ended the quarter with $108,000 cash on hand.
Becky Greenwald raised almost $24,000 although $3,500 of that sum came from her own pocket. Of the rest, almost half came from donors with the last name Garst. As Greenwald’s mother was married to a member of the Garst family, it’s not a surprise that she was able to take advantage of her familial connections for her campaign. In fact, one of the Garsts, Marilyn Garst of Coon Rapids, has already maxed out to Greenwald for both the primary and general elections. This means that nearly 10% of the money Greenwald raised in the quarter cannot be used in a primary. However, as Greenwald was holding a major fundraiser with Tom Vilsack after the end of the quarter, one suspects her fundraising will increase. But in the meantime, she ended the quarter with just over $20,000 on hand.
Both Greenwald and Meyer are strong candidates but it’s still unclear what the result of what will almost certainly be a sleepy, low-turnout primary will be. While Greenwald will stand out as the only woman on the ballot (and Meyer has a very similar last name to Meyers), there are also very competitive primaries in Mason City and Decorah, which will drive turnout in the northern part of the district. As Meyer is from Northern Iowa while Greenwald is from Dallas County, this may help him if voters base their decision on geography. But then again, most voters may not know who any of the congressional candidates even are, let alone where they are from.
While the top of Ed Fallon’s balance sheet shows a very solid fundraising quarter, the details hide a sad truth. Fallon’s ethics woes have hurt him badly among potential donors. Fallon’s credibility gap over issues related to I’M for Iowa has led to fewer and fewer donors trusting him. While Fallon claimed 2,082 total donors for the quarter, almost 80% of them wrote their checks before mid-February. In the last six weeks of the quarter, Fallon’s fundraising slowed to a trickle. The result is that Fallon has already spent nine out of every ten dollars that he has raised and, after counting for outstanding debts, he has less than $3000 available to spend on the last 90 days of his campaign. If Fallon’s fundraising continues to dry up, he won’t have enough money to meet his payroll, let alone pay himself through “the Fallon loophole“. Of course, if Fallon had been upfront about I’M for Iowa and its donors, none of this would have happened. But, like Richard Nixon, it seems it was not the crime that brought Ed Fallon down, it was the cover up.
It’s worth noting that the Iowa General Assembly finally passed an indoor smoking ban this week. This bill had been working its way through the legislature all session and ping-ponged between the House and Senate on the issue of whether to exempt casino floors from the ban. While, unfortunately, casino floors were exempted, it is worth noting that last year, legislators were unable to pass a bill that would give local jurisdictions the authority to enact workplace smoking bans, let alone a statewide one. While some anti-smoking advocates may be disappointed by the exemption, the bill still represents a great leap forward for public health in Iowa.
Although we find it a bit repetitive and dull writing about Ed Fallon, one would think that the Fallon campaign would feel the same way about lying. Unfortunately, Fallon’s now endemic dishonesty was exposed again. A Fallon press release claimed that the FEC had given Fallon a clean bill of ethical health after mounting evidence of Fallon committing campaign finance violations. Unfortunately, the FEC didn’t. According to FEC spokesman George Smaragdis, “no Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.” Even prior to the FEC disavowing Fallon’s claims, suspicions were raised due to the fact Fallon never used a direct quote or cited a specific FEC employee by name in his press release.
However, the same Fallon staffer who contacted the FEC, campaign manager Lynn Heuss, was the same Fallon staffer who told the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board that Fallon was considering a third party bid for Governor, something Fallon immediately denied and claimed was a miscommunication. This comes after earlier this week when Fallon lied about his income from I’m for Iowa. Between that and his false claim of a statement from the FEC, that’s a minimum of two outright Fallon lies this week alone. In fact, there’s even a third lie if you believe Fallon was actually lying about considering a third party run for Governor in 2006, considering that Heuss is Fallon’s current and former campaign manager, former legislative aide, partner in I’M for Iowa and is registered to vote at the same address as Fallon. One presumes that a miscommunication between two people so close on a such a basic question would be rather unlikely.
It’s sad that Fallon, a former clean elections advocate, has sunk so low. When the Iowa House tries to pass a bill to ban candidates from paying themselves (incidentally, one of the election law reforms Barack Obama passed in Illinois), he attacks the Democratic Party leadership as “bought and paid for” and expresses the hope that, unless his favored clean elections legislation passes, Democrats lose their majority in the Iowa House. It seems that Fallon doesn’t just support Ralph Nader anymore, he’s starting to warm towards Chris Rants too.
The shame of it is that Fallon believes everything he’s doing is right. He’s been so caught up in his crusade for Congress, he seems to have lost track of right and wrong. He’s a clean elections advocate who is refusing to disclose donors to his amorphous partnership. He’s a man running on integrity who is brazenly lying. One is reminded of a Greek tragedy, or at least the Alec Guinness character from Bridge on the River Kwai. He’s so caught up and obsessed with his bid for Congress, he thinks no one will notice when he makes up FEC opinions, not even the FEC itself. Imbued with self-righteousness, Fallon seems to think he’s starring in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington when he’s merely playing the title role in Billy Liar.
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. (more…)
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.
