Search Results for ‘fair deal’
All signs are positive that Governor Culver will sign the collective bargaining bill that will give public employees the same rights as those in the private sector. Iowa Progress previously commented on this bill before and Culver’s reluctance to sign it-although perhaps displaying the some of the same pique that the post attributes to Chet. What is clear is that the bill is a good piece of legislation that will help all Iowans.
Culver has been a good governor so far and shown notable leadership on issues such as stem cell research. While his equivocation on this issue was less than admirable, what matters is that he is coming down on the right side at the end of the day and will ensure that Iowa’s public employees get a fair deal.
April 24th, 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
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.
March 3rd, 2007
In 1996 a recently elected state representative from Central Iowa sought out the land deal of the decade. What did he get? He made over $50,000 from scamming an elderly woman in Las Vegas, with the help of a local attorney (who would subsequently be disbarred), setting the stage for the biggest scandal in Central Iowa politics this side of CIETC.
Representative Danny Carroll of Grinnell is the Republican Speaker Pro Tem of the Iowa House. He was elected to the Iowa House in 1994 and was elected Speaker Pro Tem in 2003. Carroll is owner of the “Carroll Pumpkin Farm” and is a lobbyist with Iowa Telecom. An extreme social conservative, he has campaigned with GOP presidential hopefuls such as Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Haley Barbour, Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney, and former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich.
The mention of Gingrich is especially pertinent. With Democrats poised to take back the U.S. House and end the Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, the following tale of abuse of power and exploitation demonstrates that the GOP “culture of corruption” has clearly found its way into local Iowa politics, namely through Danny Carroll.
In 1999, Grinnell attorney Brian Bisbee was disbarred by the Iowa Supreme Court for “seriously violat(ing) his ethical responsibility as (a) lawyer.” Bisbee was representing Cora Creamer in the sale of her property to Representative Danny Carroll. Mrs. Creamer was an elderly widow who had fallen behind in her bills. She owed approximately $7,900 in back fees and taxes on her property and she wanted to sell her home. Typical practice is for a person to sell their home and subtract the liens and back taxes from the sale price at closing. What Bisbee didn’t disclose was that he was also participating in the transaction financially by working closely with Representative Carroll who was providing the financing for the deal. In the disbarment proceeding, an unnamed Grinnell realtor is mentioned. The Iowa Progress team has recently uncovered property records that decisively prove that Representative Carroll was the person behind the financing of the transaction as well as the holder of the deed & title.
Essentially, Bisbee & Carroll took a 50% interest in Mrs. Creamer’s Las Vegas home as payment for settling the liens and back taxes on the property.
They did not disclose to Mrs. Creamer that she only owed $7,900. The 50% interest in the home would amount to approximately $50,000. This placed Bisbee in the incredibly unethical position of both representing the interests of the seller and the buyer who was working behind the scenes to finish the deal - Danny Carroll. The liens and back taxes were all paid by Representative Carroll - as shown here. You can also search the public records on the Clark County Recorder’s site HERE.
Now, the rules relating to real estate professionals in Iowa operating out of state are shady, but for lawyers they are very clear. According to the Supreme Court opinion:
“Nothing in the record before us suggests that Bisbee disclosed to his client that the proposed financial arrangement was more advantageous for him than for her. Given this obvious conflict, it became Bisbee’s burden to establish that his transaction with Creamer was fair and equitable.”
Representative Danny Carroll participated in the scamming of a poor elderly woman for his, and Bisbee’s, own financial gain. This is what the Supreme Court said of Bisbee’s conduct:
“Bisbee’s financial entanglement with Creamer […] was costly to her. Moreover, his failure to cooperate in these proceedings has impeded the administration of justice and reflects poorly on his fitness to practice law. His disregard for his client’s interests, as well as those of the profession, demands a lengthy suspension.”
Bisbee was disbarred in 1999, but because he declined to name his partner in crime directly, Carroll largely got off the hook — though not completely: after Bisbee’s disbarment, Carroll “voluntarily” retired from Ramsey-Weeks, the Grinnell real estate firm where he had been employed. I called up Bisbee yesterday who now runs an evangelical shelter in Missouri, to see if he’d answer any questions about his relationship with Carroll. He politely declined. Remember folks, this was a sitting state representative who had also served as a County Supervisor for many years prior. He participated in a deal that “impeded the administration of justice” and bilked a poor older woman of around $50,000. This is the same Representative Danny Carroll who says he values seniors.
But talk is cheap. And unfortunately, it seems Danny Carroll doesn’t put his money where his mouth is.
November 3rd, 2006
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
September 18th, 2006
As yesterday’s deadline for seniors to enroll in Bush’s Medicare Plan D program approached, last week Democrats explained that the program is really just a huge give away to pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The costs of the plan have already doubled, and 74% of the 29 million people Bush is claiming to have helped already had prescription drug coverage via Medicaid, Medicare advantage plans, or an employer/union plan. According to USA Today, under the plan costs would increase for 19-23% of seniors.
Since the plan is confusing, probably not helpful, and a lot of people don’t even know about it, it makes sense that Democrats were calling for the May 15 deadline to be repealed.
And then someone answered their calls: Chuck Grassley.
Naturally he had less to say to the Des Moines Register about his reasoning for sponsoring a bill to remove deadline penalites:
Grassley said those who rushed to sign up before the deadline “could legitimately see this as unfair to them, because they signed up.” But, he said, “we are dealing with a whole brand new program” and it takes time to be accepted.
Democrats had pushed hard for the deadline to be extended and the penalty waived. Grassley said he did not propose the legislation so that Democrats would lose an election issue. “Good policy makes good politics and I think this is good policy,” he said.
At any rate, anyone who thinks repealing a $2 a month penalty is going to stop healthcare from being an election issue is clearly off their meds.
May 16th, 2006
Some of these topics deserve a bit more coverage than this post will give them, but still, here are the skinnies…
- Tom Vilsack will make his first visit to New Hampshire next month, headlining a fund-raiser for Democrats from Manchester (NH’s largest city). He was supposed to go last Fall, but somehow hurricane Katrina forced him to reschedule. Past guests at this particular event include both Al Gore and John Kerry.
- Results from the immigrant protests are beginning to be quantified here in Iowa. United for the Safety and Dignity of Immigrants, a big immigrants’ rights organization here in Iowa, has estimated that 40,000 Iowans participated in the May 1 “Day Without Immigrants.” It’s also being estimated that 17 Iowans who participated were fired as a result. It seems impossible to even begin to understand how either of those statistics were compiled, but there they are.
- The University of Iowa is trying to improve gender equity in its faculty hiring and promotion process. They’re still well short of their (somewhat meager) goal of making their faculty 32% female by 2010, but a committee today proposed improving the situation with a fairer tenure review process that wouldn’t penalize women who take maternity leave. Women make up an “increasing” percentage of their faculty, but the “increase” is less than 1% a year.
- Archer Daniels Midland is building two new ethanol plants, one of which will be in Cedar Rapids (the other will be in Columbus, NE). Both plants will output about 275 million gallons a year. The Cedar Rapids plant will be finished in the second half of 2008, and it’ll expand ADM’s ethanol output from 1 billion gallons a year to 1.5 billion.
- Diebold screws up again, and it looks like it’s going to affect us in Iowa. Computer scientists are calling this newly discovered way of tampering with “black box” voting machines the “worst case scenario” and the “most serious security breach.” They won’t even describe the flaw because of the risk of any Joe Schmo doing it to tamper with or disable the voting machines. Maybe private companies shouldn’t be controlling the way we elect our government officials?
- And, finally, Iowa’s corn is looking a little purple. I don’t know enough about agriculture to know how big a deal it is, but it sounds kind of funny.
I’m going to try to take some time to write up another post about the political implications of the Maytag closure tonight, so don’t be alarmed that I haven’t included a single story on that in this roundup.
May 11th, 2006
When we contacted the three campaigns about conducting these interviews, the Fallon campaign was the first to respond. And they forwarded our questions on to not one, but three staffers: Volunteer Coordinator Rob Sand, Canvass Director Christina Jens, and Grassroots Organizer Adam Mason. And, while it made my job editing and compiling a little more complicated, I’m not complaining, because this interview, like the others, provides some pretty interesting reading.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Rob Sand: I was much more active with skateboarding at the beginning of high school than anything in politics beyond reading the newspaper. I didn’t feel like I could have much of an impact.
After my friends and I kept getting kicked out of skate spots, though, I got pissed and decided to start a campaign to get Decorah (my hometown) to build a public skatepark. It took nearly 2 years, and by the time the concrete was poured I had quit skating (too busy with the project), graduated high school, and left town. But the project taught me that one person can make a difference- I don’t think its cool for many in our cynical generation to think that, but I do. The skatepark made politics/public affairs my passion, and that’s why I’m working for Ed.
Christina Jens: My family’s always been politically aware. It was a common topic of conversation at the dinner table growing up. I fell into organizing in my last year of college. I unintentionally found myself heading up one of the student organizations at Iowa State, and the following summer also fell into a job canvassing with the State PIRGs. Much to my simultaneous joy and dismay, I discovered that I loved it.
Adam Mason: Studied Political Science, had early goals of being Diplomat, Foreign service ambitions. Became disenchanted with the system. Worked odd jobs from retail management to construction to janitor to hotel mgmt. Always found myself staying up to date on issues, world politics especially, Dc politics… Started reading about this Ed Fallon Guy in early 2005, liked wht he was saying, and started volunteering. A position to Organize came open in the Summer of 2005, and although I had no official political experience, was brought on and have been learning it, loving it, and hopefully accomplishing it.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
RS: I graduated college in December, took a graduation celebration vacation in January, and started here in February. Most folks I know switch between policy and campaign work depending on the year, or do consulting for other campaigns (school board, bond issues, voter referendum). Also, there’s always organizing for next year!
CJ: I spent 5 years canvassing and directing canvass operations for non-profit organizations around the country. I decided to come back to Iowa a year and half ago and worked providing technical support for customers of a local ISP. At the beginning of the year I decided I needed to get back in to organizing, and volunteered on a local school referendum campaign, and worked a couple temp jobs before joining the Fallon for Governor staff. After this election season, I plan to stay active in politics; the capacity is yet to be determined.
AM: See above, but also: As this is my first campaign, I hope to be involved with an Ed Fallon administration. 2008 Presidential Candidates will probably be beginning soon after this November’s elections- as much as I hate to think about it. (So much talk about them already) and I would love an opportunity to continue working for Candidates I believe in (Russ Feingold) I would also consider the not-for-profit arena as a way to work along issue lines to continue helping people. (Social Justice, Clean Elections, Living Wage…)
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
RS: The internet far surpasses any other tool for organizing and communication. It allows campaigns to organize and communicate with supporters, and allow supporters to organize and communicate amongst themselves. I think the sense of ownership the web provides citizens over the campaign is unparalled as a tool for getting volunteers and supporters to get more and more involved, and its the work those supporters do that can make the difference.
I think blogs are journalism’s last best hope, outside of a president with the intestinal fortitude to break up the media monopolies. Corporate media ownership demands returns for shareholders and reporting the news takes second place to that. Tough, investigative journalism- the kind we really need- demands too many resources and gives small returns, so our media quality is suffering. You can find a lot of stories breaking on blogs today. Even though few people read them, reporters are among their readers. So those investigations by “citizen reporters” usually end up making the papers and shaping the media agenda.
I honestly think any candidate that ignores what is being said in the blogosphere and power of the web is a losing candidate.
AM: It is very interesting to watch conversations in online communities. They are more lasting than just a speech or conversation, and therefore have the potential to reach more voters, and influence/involve that many more opinions. We have also seen the rise of online fundraising in the last few election cycles. As PAC’s continue to hold successful online fund drive’s, we see that this is a tool not to underestimate. I am not sure that the internet is revolutionizing the Iowa political climate, as many of the state’s voters are those that are slowest to embrace technology. However, as technology becomes more integrated, I look for the internet’s role to evolve. That being said, for those that do embrace technology, we must try and offer a campaign site that is exciting, interactive, and accessible. It is also beneficial to monitor and participate in blogs to share ideas and information.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
RS: Its a cliched Catch-22 that politicians don’t listen to young people because they don’t vote, and young people don’t vote because politicians don’t listen. The last place to look for the instigation of major change is elected officials, so I think its up to us. Our generation needs to get off our asses and demand that there be a better situation for ourselves as adults and for our kids when they come around. 15% of us are doing a damn fine job, but at some point we have to stop talking to ourselves and get out there to engage our politically disengaged peers- but without sounding holier-than-thou or preachy. Blogging helps, talking to friends helps, organizing helps more. Sorry to offer a lot of bland platitudes…
CJ: An active one.
AM: Students have a long history of doing the “grunt work” of campaigning. They are the quickest and most willing to jump at opportunities Canvassing, phone banking, and in general just volunteering. As well they should, the decisions that are being made now in statehouses and in Washington will affect them for many many years to come. By becoming informed and active, they help ensure spirited debate, active campaigns, and voter participation.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
RS, CJ, AM: It may be for some candidates. Ed Fallon has a common sense message that appeals to voters from all backgrounds. While he’s from Des Moines, he’s also served on the Agriculture Committee and is familiar with issues that affect all Iowans.
IP: (Specific for Fallon campaign) Your campaign has refused to take money from PACs (and has refused some other traditional forms of political contributions). Some have predicted that Nussle will have a record amount of cash for the general election. How will you deal with that inequality if yours is the campaign that wins the primary?
RS, CJ, AM: Ed Fallon has a long history of winning campaigns where he’s been outspent. We will address the issue through continuing to build our grassroots support and talking about the need to address the way that political campaigns are financed. We’re the only campaign that can provide a clear contrast to Nussle in this regard.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
RS, CJ, AM: We provide the clearest contrast to Nussle. Ed Fallon will continue to advocate for responsible land use, ensuring that all Iowans have access to healthcare, adequately funding out education system, and ensuring that our state’s government is accountable to Iowans, not to corporate sponsors.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
RS: Anyone who’s ever canvassed for a job can tell you unbelievable stories. My favorite is the Balitmore, MD senior citizen who stepped out from him front door after I knocked on it and offered a fight with, “Just try me, boy!” while his wife chided him from inside. The 80-year-old man who answered in just bikini briefs was interesting too; I held my clipboard in the perfect position to block… things. Canvass: its the best job you’ll ever have.
May 3rd, 2006
