Search Results for ‘finance reform bill’
Although Ed Fallon has been painted as unelectable for a variety of reasons, including his support for Ralph Nader in 2000, what really makes him vulnerable is his repeated votes to protect sex offenders versus the general public. Fallon was the only state representative to vote against a bill that banned sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or day care center, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to voted against against extending the statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse, Fallon was the only member of the Iowa House to vote against increased funding to monitor sex offenders and Fallon also voted against tougher penalties against people who solicit children to commit a sex act. Fallon even cast the sole vote against making bestiality a crime!
This repeated pattern of voting against public safety raises grave questions about Fallon’s judgment. While some Democrats have been painted as “soft on crime” in campaigns in the past, it is apparent from Ed Fallon’s record that he is one of the few who is genuinely soft on crime and in a highly disturbing way. This is not about someone who favors rehabilitating prisoners, Ed Fallon wants sex offenders to be able to avoid prosecution for their crimes. This is not someone who thinks non-violent offenders shouldn’t be in jail, Ed Fallon thinks child molesters shouldn’t be imprisoned. Not to mention that although Ed Fallon crusades against hog lots, “Sex Ed” seems to think that sexually assaulting animals is perfectly fine.
“Sex Ed” Fallon has a record that is disturbingly out of touch with most people’s basic values. He finds campaign finance reforms promoted by Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be appalling but thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with sheep. He thinks its acceptable to make up statements from the FEC but it’s wrong to lock away people convicted of molesting children. While Fallon may boast a degree in Religious Studies, it’s clear that he didn’t take too many courses in morality.
May 28th, 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
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
Ed Fallon was a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000. He described Al Gore as “to the right of Bill Clinton” and said that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either.”
So what was the platform of the far-right wing, DLC Democrat that Ed Fallon refused to support?
In Gore’s acceptance speech, he stated that “campaign finance reform will be the very first bill that I send to the United States Congress,” that “free trade…must be fair trade” and reaffirmed his commitment to a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, in that very same speech, Gore reiterated the basic theme of his campaign-representing the people versus the powerful, which Gore defined as “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs”. It is a theme that Ed Fallon even supported in 2008 when he endorsed John Edwards, whose candidacy was based on the idea that “powerful, well-financed interests [were] taking over this democracy, and taking it away from regular Americans.”
So the question is what was so right-wing about Al Gore crusading for campaign finance reform, fair trade and gay rights in 2000 that Ed Fallon couldn’t support him? Instead, Fallon supported a candidate and party that advocated ending the use of all pesticides and most fertilizers and “an end to government price supports” for agriculture, wanted to allow unemployed Americans collect government benefits without any time limit or restrictions and believed African Americans should be able to form their own separate nation on American soil. It’s a platform that veers from policies that are just bad to those that are outright wacky.
When Ed Fallon would rather support the candidacy of someone who runs on a platform that African Americans have a right to secede from the United States and form their own nation on American soil over a candidate who is committed to passing campaign finance reform, something is wrong. Ed Fallon’s support of Ralph Nader and the Green Party over Al Gore is not just a sign of bad judgment but it’s a sign of someone who has the wrong priorities for Iowa, for America and for Liberalism and Progressivism as well.
January 30th, 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
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
