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
I posted about this a few days ago: Nussle made the first TV buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election — and it only cost $500,000! The ad is now online, so watch it a few times (Quicktime, Windows Media). It’s short and incredibly empty of substance, but here’s what it claims (and why it’s flat-out wrong, line by line):
Nussle learned leadership “from the ground up.” That’s mostly just a stupid thing to say. I wonder whether they focus grouped to determine that the “from the ground up” leadership style was more appealing than other less creative, more conventional leadership styles. (The “don’t make a huge surplus into a huge deficit” style of leadership comes to mind as one potential alternative…)
Keep reading; the fun has just begun.
“In Congress, Jim is a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the house ethics scandal.” I can’t believe he went there. My only guess why is that he knew the Democorats wouldn’t have the money to spend on response ads right now, so audiences wouldn’t hear about how he is as responsible as anyone in Washington for the devastating budget reversal that turned a $236 billion surplus into a $412 billion deficit.
And I’d like to see him try to prove the claim that he’s a leader in the fight to “clean up the house ethics scandal,” but I’m suspicious that the language here, too, is more “manipulative” than, say, “truthful.” The phrase “clean up the house ethics scandal” seems to achieve a number of marketing objectives: First, the language of “cleaning up a scandal” is a lot more favorable to Nussle than the language of “cleaning up a group of crooked politicians,” because Nussle is, on many accounts, a crooked politician. Second, calling it a “scandal” makes it sound like anyone who mentions it or tries to draw attention to it is just a gossip (a gossip who hates FREEDOM). And third, it makes Nussle’s position offensive rather than defensive. If his position were merely “I’m not scandalous,” it would be a weak, defensive position. “I fight scandal” is offense. And he has the money, so he can preempt us like that.
Nussle wants to “make Iowa’s schools the world’s best.” He should’ve thought about it before he co-sponsored the now-infamous No Child Left Behind Act, which attempted to force Iowa to model its education system after the bottom-of-the-barrel Texas system. You’d think that Nussle would at least realize that such a flawed un-funded mandate was a bad idea after the fact, but no, he still touts it on his generic, uninspired education flyer.
He also has his own plan, called “Empowering Parents With Choice in Education” (oh, so now he’s pro-choice). It is also just a tax credit, but it doubles as a creative backdoor into a school voucher program. Except, unlike the other places where school voucher programs have been proposed, this won’t be targeted towards the socioeconomically needy. He just wants to give away $1,500 in tax credits to anyone who wants to send a kid to private school. That’s per kid (maximum $6,000 for married couples or $3,000 for single filers). Iowa already ranks in the bottom half of the nation in per-pupil spending and is losing teachers to bordering states. Do we really need to make it worse? And is a tax credit alone really something Nussle has the right to call an education plan of any kind? I’m thinking not.
Nussle wants to make Iowa “the renewable energy capital of the world.” According to Nussle’s “Energy Project 20/20″, that mostly means tax breaks. Past that, his position is wishy-washy. He does borrow some pretty sweet corn photos from the Iowa Corn Promotion Board, though.
Nussle wants to promote “affordable health care.” He has no health care plan on his web site. He does have a PDF of his “record on health care”, though, and it ain’t pretty. The first vote listed is, well, see for yourself: “Nussle Fought for Iowa Hospitals to Ensure Fair Reimbursements, Extended Coverage and Greater Flexibility.” It made sure hospitals got more money, which Nussle thinks might have also meant employees got paid more. In particular, “providing higher payments for all physicians with a 5% bonus payment to physicians in rural areas.” Way to fight for the underdog.
The second “accomplishment” listed is merely that, as budget chairman, Nussle oversaw the passage of the 2006 budget, which, among about a bazillion other things, “resulted in continued funding for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The rest are generally pro-hospital and pro-doctor (including fighting against “frivolous law suits” and voting “to cut away needless paperwork”).
And finally, he claims that he’ll “energize Iowa’s future.” I don’t see that happening.
April 24th, 2006
Nussle is often mentioned in the context of large sums of money, but this time we’re not talking about the unprecedented national deficit. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported today that Nussle has made the first TV ad buy of the 2006 gubernatorial election:
The 30-second ads tout his agenda and his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee. The commercials, scheduled to begin airing this weekend, will try to show Nussle as “a leader in the fight to control spending and clean up the House Ethics scandal.”
Campaign aides said the commercials will run on both cable and broadcast stations statewide. The cost of the ads is $500,000.
Well, that’s an interesting angle for these ads to play. Maybe Nussle’s staff is making these claims about Nussle’s supposed success in controlling spending (something he has actually failed miserably at) on TV at a time when they know that (1) Democrats are too focused on each other to put many resources towards fighting this and (2) the Democratic candidates just can’t afford this widespread a TV buy this early in the year. We need to make sure this story doesn’t go away, so here are the facts:
Before Nussle (according to the CBO in 2000): $236 Billion Surplus
After Nussle (according to the CBO in 2004): $412 Billion Deficit
It’s that simple. Nussle sucked at managing the budget.
April 21st, 2006
The Register is also covering Fallon’s statement of support for the party’s nominee. For the most part it’s the same statement on his website & stuff we already know, but it does include a positive mention:
Fallon has a loyal, grass-roots following and often scores the loudest applause during candidate events where he appears with the others.
The article also mentions some new Blouin proposals:
In other primary news, Blouin proposed restoring cuts to the state’s community college system over the past five years. The proposal was the third in a series related to education by the Blouin campaign this spring.
Blouin also proposed spending an additional $40 million on job-training programs affiliated with Iowa’s community colleges. The announcement came in the wake of a financial scandal involving the management of a central Iowa job-training program.
April 11th, 2006
