Search Results for ‘campaign for governor’
Although we have addressed our regret about the focus on Ed Fallon’s failings as a candidate and human being that Iowa Progress has been taking (including the post above and below), it is worth doing so again. It was never the intent for this to happen but unfortunately, events have overtaken that intent. Several months ago, the conventional narrative about this election was Democratic activists choosing between pragmatism in the form of Leonard Boswell, a six term moderate incumbent who has consistently won in a marginal Congressional district, and Ed Fallon, a progressive activist with whom many activists were more ideologically in tune but who many worried was too far to the left for the district. This narrative has not held. While Boswell has run an unspectacular, mistake-free, “Rose Garden,” campaign, Fallon has seemingly made every mistake possible save being caught in bed with the proverbial “dead girl or live boy.”
What candidates do effects what is written about them. Leonard Boswell’s campaign has, quite intentionally, done little of note. That leaves little new to write about him. As Iowa’s only Democratic Congressman for 10 years, plenty has already been written about him and getting into the debate about whether Boswell is a “Bush Dog,” or “Blue Dog” or any other kind of canine is quite tiresome and repetitive. At this point, most readers of Iowa Progress and most voters know who Leonard Boswell is for better or worse. Had major ethical issues been raised about Boswell, they would have been covered. Had questions about Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have been covered. Had Leonard Boswell’s campaign showed major signs of mismanagement, they would have been covered. But all three problems have arisen with Ed Fallon.
The conflict between Fallon’s professed position on campaign finance reform and the actions of his campaign, including I’m For Iowa can only be described for chutzpah. Fallon further dug himself a deeper hole by not just defending himself for paying himself out of campaign funds via the so-called “Fallon Loophole” but attacking attempts to close it as somehow being corrupt as well. His nondisclosure of his I’M for Iowa’s funds is quite unsettling and raises broad questions about what the purpose of the organization is. The refusal to disclose the information created the appearance of guilt, even if none existed, and created an ongoing story that appears to have severely hurt Fallon’s fundraising. The Fallon campaign has also resurrected broader questions about Fallon’s loyalty to the Democratic Party because of his campaign manager’s claim that he was considering a third party run for Governor in 2006. These questions were initially raised because Fallon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.
Ed Fallon began the race as a severely flawed candidate and his behavior since announcing his candidacy has done little to inspire any additional confidence in his fitness to serve in the United States Congress. If another Democrat had been running with the same policy positions of Ed Fallon without the personal baggage, Iowa Progress’s coverage would unquestionably have been entirely different. If someone like Frank Cownie or Kevin McCarthy was running against Leonard Boswell (though it’s impossible to imagine a situation where either would challenge Boswell in a primary), we would ended up taking a tone and stance far removed than what we done in the past few months. (Presuming, of course, neither of them would make the host of miscues that Fallon has made.)
While Iowa Progress’s coverage of the 3rd District has been entirely factual and every statement made has been true, it is still clear that some posts have become increasingly snarky and vitriolic. This is highly regrettable. We wish that these posts had been written in a more civilized tone but, we also wish that Ed Fallon had not engaged in the behavior that prompted these posts to be written in the first place.
May 28th, 2008
On Iowa Press the other day, State Auditor Dave Vaudt ducked the question of whether he would consider running for Governor in 2010. While Vaudt doesn’t have much of a public profile, he’s still one of two statewide Republican elected officials and has few negatives attached to his name. However, it’s worth noting that Vaudt would not have been in the position to even contemplate a 2010 run for Governor if the Democrats had bothered to nominate a candidate to oppose him in 2006. While leaving legislative seats uncontested hurt Democrats in 2006, failing to run a candidate for Auditor hurt Democrats even more. With the sole exception of Denise O’Brien, who narrowly lost her underfunded campaign for Secretary of Agriculture after it was revealed that she didn’t feed her cows, every statewide Democrat won by a healthy margin and Democrats made gains statewide. If Democrats had found a distinguished nonentity to merely place his name on the ballot, Vaudt probably would have been defeated. Instead, there is now a Republican statewide elected official who can plot a run for Governor from inside the heart of state government.
May 18th, 2008
The other day, the Iowa State Senate voted by a margin of 47-2 to close the Fallon Loophole that allows candidates to pay themselves with campaign funds. The issue of candidates paying themselves salaries with campaign funds came to the fore after it was revealed that Fallon paid himself nearly $14,000 in campaign funds after losing his 2006 bid for Governor. While Fallon attacked this initiative as “status quo politics at its worst” and described the bill as a “silly bill.” However, it is no different than legislation passed by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate which prevented candidates from paying themselves with campaign funds in that state. While Fallon, after being paid by John Edwards during the caucuses, is now an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, it seems Fallon does not share Obama’s zeal for change in this aspect of campaign finance reform.
It’s also worth noting that the only two Senators who wanted to keep the Fallon Loophole opened were Jack Hatch, who represents Fallon’s former district and has to kowtow to Fallon’s base and Mary Lundby, the former Republican leader in the Senate who openly displayed her contempt for organized labor last year.
There was a time when Ed Fallon would have proud that any campaign finance reform bill passed by a margin of 47-2. Now he calls it silly and displays open disdain for a small step forward for good government and honest politicians. It’s sad that once again, as with I’M For Iowa, Fallon values his own personal gain over campaign finance reform.
April 23rd, 2008
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.
April 17th, 2008
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.
April 3rd, 2008
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.
March 31st, 2008
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.
March 30th, 2008
For those who have followed the polls over the course of this election, it may be a relief to know the final numbers on January 3rd. Many dozens of polls have been taken, often showing results ten percentage points or more away from the poll taken next. Pollsters call voters in Iowa and NH three or four times a day. Campaigns add to the telephone traffic. The Obama campaign has made 1.6 million phone calls in New Hampshire, which has a total population of 1.3 million people.
But as the election has gotten closer and the media coverage become more intense, the polls have swung even more wildly. Governor Mike Huckabee was a media darling with low poll numbers until his numbers inched up in a couple of polls; then talk of a Huckabee surge brought the spotlight to him, and he was suddenly up by 22 points in Iowa. But the increased attention brought increased scrutiny. In fact, it was just enough scrutiny to bring Huckabee’s numbers to the level of former Governor Mitt Romney’s, effectively creating a “horserace.”
The same thing happened with McCain in New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, Obama and now Edwards in Iowa. Remember the pre-Thompson buzz, too?
It all smacks of the rise and fall of Howard Dean. The Media brought him increased attention, and his poll numbers went up. But then they kept going up, and the media went into full-scrutiny mode (remember “Doubts About Dean” for weeks on end?). It was a big story when his numbers finally topped off, and the moment the media was waiting for came on the night of the Iowa Caucuses. The media flexed its muscles, and the ‘default-nominee’ faltered.
Did the media buzz create high poll numbers, or vise versa? Whether the powers-that-be artificially engineered these contests or not, these multi-way horseraces are nothing but good for the political press.
January 1st, 2008
The increasing buzz that Leonard Boswell might face a primary challenge from former State Representative Ed Fallon leads to some interesting questions.
The first question is, what effect does this have on the caucuses? There are less than two weeks left and a prominent supporter of John Edwards is going after a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. What effect does this have on media perceptions of Edwards and Clinton and does it change the storyline at all? At this point, the political press is so focused on Iowa that the slightest bit of political news in the state can make national headlines.
Second, is how does this effect Republican efforts to recruit a candidate. As of now, there is no Republican candidate who is publicly expressed interest in running for Congress in the Third District and NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) is still husbanding its scarce national resources, Boswell’s seat wasn’t expected to be a high priority. However, now with a primary, the RNCC might take a second look and bump up a congressional district that George Bush won in 2004 on its list of priorities. It’s also worth noting that Tom Cole, the NRCC Chair, went to college in the Third District at Grinnell.
Finally, the question is what the storyline for a Boswell-Fallon race would be. Although the netroots is already getting excited about the race, depicting it as a strong progressive leader taking on an out of touch, geriatric incumbent. However, the election could just as easily be depicted as an accordion playing, Kucinich supporter running against a war hero and family farmer. Both are valid story lines and it seems likely that the one that will emerge will be an amalgamation of the two. But one of those two options is likely to become the dominant theme of media coverage of the race and how it is perceived not just by the press but by voters.
No matter what, this will be an interesting race to watch. Iowa is traditionally a state very friendly to incumbents and the only significant primary challenge that an incumbent has faced in recent memory was Fred Gandy’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat Terry Bransted in the Republican primary for Governor in 1994. But turnout in primary elections is traditionally low (only 11% of voters participated in either the Democratic or Republican Primary in 2006) and anything can happen in a low turnout election. Unfortunately, no matter how this race takes shape, one thing is certain. Only a low percentage of voters will end up participating in a Boswell vs Fallon primary and the winner will be the candidate most able to take advantage of the unique dynamics of this race.
December 24th, 2007
Bill Richardson started his campaign as a moderate Democrat who was running based on a rather impressive resume as Governor, Cabinet Member, Diplomat and Congressman. He talked about his experience balancing budgets and opposing gun control. However, Richardson’s campaign has recently changed its tack dramatically. While Richardson still emphasizes his background as a pro-gun moderate in rural areas, he’s now become the peacenik candidate in the rest of Iowa.
Richardson has come out as the only major Presidential candidate to support withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in six months and filmed an ad with bloggers endorsing his policy. He has phased out wearing an American flag lapel pin in favor of the Sensible Priorities pin.
The most extreme sign of Richardson’s tack to the left was his recent hiring of Dave Rogers as his political director. Rogers worked on Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign and was reported by reliable sources to be staffing Kucinich at events as recently as this spring. Rogers has also worked for Western Iowa’s answer to Dennis Kucinich, Joyce Schulte, as well as for the Sensible Priorities campaign.
In contrast, the political directors for 1st tier Presidential campaigns are longtime Iowa political operatives (Chris Hayler for Clinton, Emily Parcell for Obama) or national operatives (Tim Maloney for Edwards). However, they focus on getting the support of legislators, major activists and organized labor. It seems that Rogers will be focusing on the anti-war left (as it is doubtful that someone who operated a salon and day spa is the right person to reach out to the UAW).
Rogers’ hiring further reinforces that Bill Richardson is making a very determined effort to reach out not just anti-war Democrats but, specifically, to the core of peace activists who supported Kucinich in 2004. Although peaceniks are a relatively small bloc, they are very likely caucusgoers. If Richardson is still around 10% then, peace activists could play a decisive role in propping Richardson in up in many precincts and making him viable.
But this is a dangerous balancing game for a candidate who started running as a moderate. Richardson has already lost one key supporter due to his swing to the left and Hotline, among others, finds his policy shift not plausible. Richardson is playing a very delicate balancing game trying to woo both the most conservative caucusgoers and the most liberal over the next ten weeks. If it works, Richardson might become a first tier candidate. But if it doesn’t, Richardson will not only lose but could so in a way that undermines his credibility as a politician in the future.
October 16th, 2007
Previous Posts
