Search Results for ‘former house majority leader’
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
Cross-posted at Iowa Independent
As the Iowa legislative session came to a close early Sunday, House Democrats marveled that they had passed all but one of the items on their legislative agenda. The next day, they learned that they were short one more thing: a caucus member. The two issues were not unrelated.
On Monday, Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Democrat from Mount Auburn, announced that she was becoming a Republican. Over the session, Pettengill had become increasingly estranged from the Democratic Party. When Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines learned of the news—after the press—he was “disappointed, not surprised,” he said in a phone interview yesterday. “It was more of a shift on paper. We tended not count on her to be a team player, even on procedural matters.” Pettengill did not return calls for comment.
While Pettengill clashed with her former party on a variety of issues, perhaps the most significant one was the proposed Fair Share bill, which would have allowed public employee unions to charge fees for services given to nonunion workers. “In the end, it was a pretty scaled down, reasonable proposal,” McCarthy said. It would ensure that workers “kick in their fair share of those services.”
Fair Share, despite being passed in the Iowa Senate, never came to a vote in the House because, McCarthy said, “We just didn’t have the votes to get it done.” McCarthy said that the proposal had the support of 50 Democrats in the caucus but lacked that crucial 51st. “We don’t have that large a majority.” One Democratic representative, Ray Zirkelbach of Monticello is currently serving in Iraq, and in addition to Pettengill, two other members of the Democratic caucus refused to support the bill. McCarthy declined to name those representatives.
McCarthy said that on the way to regaining the majority in the 2006 elections, some conservative Democrats ran, or were recruited, to defeat Republican incumbents. Keeping them on board for certain issues, he said was “challenging.” In the interview, McCarthy did not seem angry that the bill failed to pass; he simply stated matter-of-factly that “the answer is to continue to try to educate [reluctant members] and to pick up a few more seats” in order to make up for deserters.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Democratic leadership spent four hours trying to convince its caucus members to support the bill, and that Pettengill emerged with “tears on her face when she left the room where Democrats were meeting in private.”
McCarthy bristled at the suggestion that he had tried to strong-arm people for support. “I definitely didn’t,” he said. “We used tough arguments trying to convince people… We did that through civil and respectful conversation.” McCarthy said, “The argument that we were strong-arming people was coming from right wing Republican propaganda.” The charge, he said, was “a falsehood, a lie.”
In the end, McCarthy, said that he was not sure whether Pettengill’s defection could have been prevented. “She’s gone through a fairly significant emotional journey this session,” he said. “She was formerly a close person friend with me. That friendship had withered away, and she became more distant with members of her caucus.”
He also questioned the logic of Pettengill’s decision. Not only had she joined a party that, according to McCarthy, sent 27 negative mailings against her in the last election—“some of the most vicious, vile, mean spirited negative campaigning I’ve ever seen”—but that the party she joined was out of power. “We can’t find anybody within the last 30 years that leaves the majority party and the power to deliver to her constituents,” he said. “If I were a constituent, I would be shocked and outraged that she gave up the ability to deliver in exchange for feeling good.”
McCarthy agreed with the idea that Pettengill was reading her district wrong, that it is not as conservative as she believes. “I think,” he said with resignation, “she’s confused.”
May 3rd, 2007
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
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
Okay, while it is not specifically related to Iowa, it is specifically related to Progress, so it is going on the Blog.
Just a few minutes ago the AP reported that former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) announced today that he is resigning from the House of Representatives. The stated reason is that his reelection campaign was more difficult and more costly than he was prepared for (although he was sure to note that he thought he could’ve won, and of course, it was those pesky Liberals’ faults for being so darn negative).
And now for the spin: Republicans say that they were expecting DeLay to resign later this spring, and that he served our country well, blah, blah, blah. DeLay denied that his resignation has anything to do with lobbyist Jack Abramoff or his recent conviction.
“I know that the left has used it to try to brand me with guilt by association, but I have always served honorably and ethically,” DeLay said. “I’ve never broken the law or the spirit of the law or even a House rule.”
Democrats are of course calling this a huge victory, stressing that this goes beyond DeLay and has greater implications for the Republican Party.
“Tom DeLay’s decision to leave Congress is just the latest piece of evidence that the Republican Party is a party in disarray, a party out of ideas and out of energy,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
DeLay has been plagued by scandal lately, not only in connection to Abramoff. DeLay’s aide, Tony Rudy, has confessed to conspiring with Abramoff and committing illegal actions while working for DeLay. In September DeLay stepped down as House Majority Leader after being indicted in Texas for illegally steering funds from corporate donors to Texas legislative candidates.
No word yet on whether there will be a special election held in Texas or if the seat will remain vacant until the elections in November.
So long, Mr. Hammer.
April 4th, 2006
