Search Results for ‘des moines register’
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.
April 15th, 2008
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.
April 10th, 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
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.
March 30th, 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
Polly Granzow, the Republican State Representative from House District 44, comprising Hardin County and most of Marshall County outside of Marshalltown, is not running for re-election in 2008. This combined with Larry McKibben’s decision not to seek re-election in the Senate District that includes all of Marshall and Hardin Counties, puts local Republicans in a bind as Century for the Common Iowan notes. However, it puts the State Republican Party into even bigger bind.
So far, nine Republican incumbents in the State House are not running for re-election according to Iowa Independent. This includes every Republican but one in Polk County as well as Democratic leaning seats in Mason City and Decorah that are currently held by Bill Schickel and Chuck Gipp respectively. Granzow only won by 300 votes in 2006 and her district should be very competitive as an open seat in 2008.
But this underlies the fact that while Iowa Republicans are citing the House as one of their few bright spots in 2008. When the only two Democratic open seats are incumbents running for State Senate, it’s a pretty dubious bright spot. GOP prospects in the State House may seem brighter than those against Tom Harkin or in the State Senate. But that’s merely contrasting a good chance of losing by a landslide to almost certainly getting blown out. Unless something unexpected happens nationally or in state politics (like a political scandal or a Fallon win in the 3rd District primary) it seems pretty clear that calling the Iowa House a bright spot is only a relative term for Iowa Republicans.
February 25th, 2008
Although Iowa Progress has reported optimistically on this in the past, it seems that a workplace smoking ban is finally making progress in the state legislature. Debate is set for next week on a bill that would ban smoking from most workplaces. While the bill is imperfect and contains an exemption for casinos, it still offers a positive step towards improving the health of many Iowans. As this study by the American Lung Association shows, workplace smoking bans are not only good for public health but they’re good for business. In fact, it is estimated that secondhand smoke in the workplace costs Americans $10 billion a year.
Not only that, a recent Des Moines Register poll found that 75% of Iowans supported a workplace smoking ban. So why would anyone oppose a bill that’s popular, good for public health and good for business? It’s hard to say.
One strong opponent of a workplace smoking ban is House Minority Leader Christopher Rants. Rants frames his opposition in concern to the fact that it might deter smokers from going to bars and thus hurting local bar owners. Although a cynic might argue that Rants might be influenced by the fact he’s taken over $6,000 in donations from Big Tobacco over the past few years, those who appreciate Rants’ firm sense of personal morality know that his stand against public opinion, public health and Iowa business is solely in defense of the corner bar and the small town tavern and has nothing to do with any desire to profit from the largess of Philip Morris and other major tobacco companies.
However, despite Rants’ “principled” opposition, there’s still a strong chance that a workplace smoking ban will still happen in Iowa this year.
February 14th, 2008
Dwayne Alons, Iowa’s resident climate change expert, pronounced today that global warming isn’t a problem because we have air conditioning. Alons opined that “we shouldn’t be as concerned, actually, about warming, especially now that we have modern refrigeration and air conditioning.” Unfortunately, unless we air condition the entire planet, we’re in trouble. Global warming means that the polar icecaps will melt and flood many coastal cities and islands. In fact, according to the National Resources Defense Council, 22,400 square miles of the United States, an area half the size of Iowa, will be underwater by the year 2100 as a result of global warming.
While Alons is on the record stating that global warming made the ancient Maya “giants - taller & stronger than modern men and women,” unless it gives future generations of Americans the ability to breath underwater, no amount of air conditioning will make global warming good for anyone.
January 24th, 2008
Ed Fallon made his primary challenge official against Leonard Boswell today. As part of our continuing analysis of the race, it’s worth previewing one of Fallon’s likely attacks against Boswell. Fallon is a campaign finance reform fanatic and Boswell has taken a lot of money from political action committees. In fact, in the first three quarters of 2007, Boswell has taken in $433,000 in contributions from PACs, making up 75% of total contributions recieved. Much of the money is the result of a simple matter of timing. Leonard Boswell is a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee and this was the year that the Farm Bill came up for a renewal.
But Boswell received significant contributions from organized labor and fellow Democrats in the House. Boswell received, by Iowa Progress’s count, contributions from 17 different labor unions along with the AFL-CIO totaling $85,000. Boswell’s contributors run the full gamut of the American Labor Movement. Boswell took in contributions from unions ranging from SEIU and UNITE HERE to the Ironworkers and the Machinists. Boswell’s congressional support is just as broad. Boswell received support from 17 of his Congressional colleagues, along with support from DCCC and $9000 in contributions from Barack Obama’s PAC, Hopefund. Boswell’s contributions include Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And while it’s not surprising that Boswell took in contributions from fellow “Blue Dog” Democrats like Alan Boyd and Mike McIntyre, Boswell also received support from leading liberals like Barney Frank and Jan Schakowsky and from fellow Iowa Congressman, Bruce Braley.
In contrast to his contributions from PACs, Boswell’s individual contributors overwhelmingly came from Iowa and over 86% of his individual contributors were Iowans. But what’s most interesting is the contrasts within his contributions. Boswell took in money both from the National Pork Producers Council and from the League of Conservation Voters. Not only that, Boswell is perhaps the only Congressman who took in contributions from the NRA and the Human Rights Campaign.
Leonard Boswell has a broad range of contributors, this stems from the fact that he is a Democratic congressman in a swing district who has a lot of seniority on a major committee. But at the core, Boswell has clear support from fellow Democrats and from labor unions. Although, while Fallon may see the initial appeal of attacking Boswell on PAC contributions, it might not profit him. After all, it doesn’t suit his message to remind Democratic voters that in a Congressional District that George W. Bush won, it might be helpful in a general election to have a Democrat who can boast the support of both Nancy Pelosi and the NRA.
January 9th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts
