Search Results for ‘iowa campaign’
Ed Fallon attacked a mailing by Leonard Boswell today that criticized Fallon for his support of Ralph Nader as “very cynical [and] very deceptive” today. Iowa Progress has previously addressed Fallon’s support for Nader, including his statement that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either” in a speech that was reproduced nationally. As a result of the strong Nader organizing in Iowa, in which Ed Fallon was actively involved, the Gore campaign had to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to a state that Michael Dukakis won handily in 1988 and that Bill Clinton won twice. Gore even was in Iowa the day before the election in 2000. If Al Gore instead could have paid an extra visit to Florida or was able to run a few more ads there, it certainly would have shifted 500 votes and changed history.
But the larger issue is that while Fallon has no compulsion about attacking Boswell (and implying that reporting on subjects like I’M For Iowa done by independent reporters like Chase Martyn and Tom Beaumont comes from the Boswell press office). In fact, Fallon’s website is flush with cynical and deceptive statements such as “Boswell is bought and paid for by special interests,” Boswell “practices ‘the politics of deception,’” “Boswell…betrays American and Iowa values.’ In fact, Fallon’s attacks on Boswell go back to 2006 when Boswell was one of three most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Fallon sent out an email then calling Boswell’s campaign “offensive” and attacking him for “name calling, record-distorting and fear mongering.” Fallon did this a week before absentee ballots were sent out in 2006. However, this attack did show how Fallon’s sense of party loyalty improved since 2000. He only attacked a fellow Democrat in a tight election, rather than openly campaigning against him as well. Frankly, it seems Ed Fallon’s real complaint is that his fiscal irresponsibility keeps him from having any money to spend on paid media as even the Politico points out.
Fallon is running in a Democratic primary as someone with a history of disloyalty, dishonesty and sleaze if he can’t handle that being pointed out now, one can only imagine what the Republicans would do to him in a general election.
April 23rd, 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
Ed Fallon has attacked the attempt to close the “Fallon Loophole,” the practice of professional politicians paying themselves salaries with campaign funds, as “status quo politics at its worst.” As laughable as this statement may be, Fallon’s own reprehensible actions show why the legislature must take action.
While Fallon defend paying himself from campaign funds by stating “Most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am. They finish in the red. I managed to finish in the black,” Fallon was lying at the time. According to an amended campaign finance report filed by his gubernatorial campaign the very same day his quote appeared in the Des Moines Register, Fallon for Governor was $21,225.51 in debt. This debt had been growing since the end of the campaign, mostly fueled by Fallon’s salary, although significant payments were also made to Fallon’s girlfriend, Lynn Heuss and Fallon’s daughter Fionna received smaller payments as well. While Fallon was an advocate for Iowa’s “Mom and Pop businesses” while running for Governor, he never made it clear that he considered his campaign to be one of those businesses.
It is behavior like this that shows why the legislature needs to stop other politicians from following in Ed Fallon’s sleazy footsteps. After all, a ban on this sort of activity was a fundamental part of the ethics reform legislation that Barack Obama passed in Illinois. But unfortunately, the legislature can’t protect everyone from Fallon’s serial profligacy. His campaign has less than $3000 in net assets and a payroll of roughly $40,000 a month and Fallon already has a history of leaving his campaigns deep in debt. If I was a Fallon staffer, I would insist on getting paid in cash.
April 17th, 2008
While most of the attention paid to Iowa fundraising numbers in the first quarter of this year went to the 3rd District primary, it’s worth noting that there is a Democratic primary in the 4th District too. However, the haul for Democrats there was much less promising. Two of the candidates, William Meyers and Kevin Miskell have not even filed reports with the FEC. This is a sign that they have either not raised enough money to need to file reports or they are too incompetent to get their information in on time. One suspects that the former is the case but no matter what the scenario, it does not mark them as promising candidates in the primary (let alone in a general election against a well-funded long-time incumbent).
Of the remaining two candidates, Kurt Meyer raised $130,000 but, of that sum, $100,000 came from Meyer himself. Of the remaining $30,000, there are two noteworthy donors. The Mitchell County Democratic Party gave Meyer $500 and 2006 Democratic nominee for the 4th District, Selden Spencer, gave $250. It is also worth noting that 85% of Meyer’s itemized donations came from out of state. However, Meyer ended the quarter with $108,000 cash on hand.
Becky Greenwald raised almost $24,000 although $3,500 of that sum came from her own pocket. Of the rest, almost half came from donors with the last name Garst. As Greenwald’s mother was married to a member of the Garst family, it’s not a surprise that she was able to take advantage of her familial connections for her campaign. In fact, one of the Garsts, Marilyn Garst of Coon Rapids, has already maxed out to Greenwald for both the primary and general elections. This means that nearly 10% of the money Greenwald raised in the quarter cannot be used in a primary. However, as Greenwald was holding a major fundraiser with Tom Vilsack after the end of the quarter, one suspects her fundraising will increase. But in the meantime, she ended the quarter with just over $20,000 on hand.
Both Greenwald and Meyer are strong candidates but it’s still unclear what the result of what will almost certainly be a sleepy, low-turnout primary will be. While Greenwald will stand out as the only woman on the ballot (and Meyer has a very similar last name to Meyers), there are also very competitive primaries in Mason City and Decorah, which will drive turnout in the northern part of the district. As Meyer is from Northern Iowa while Greenwald is from Dallas County, this may help him if voters base their decision on geography. But then again, most voters may not know who any of the congressional candidates even are, let alone where they are from.
April 16th, 2008
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
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
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
Iowa Independent just published a story that reveals that congressional candidate Ed Fallon has been hiding contributions to his political organization, IM For Iowa. Although IM for Iowa’s goal is “further develop a broad movement committed to progressive reform in state and local politics,” it is legally a for-profit partnership between Fallon and his campaign manager and girlfriend Lynn Heuss. As a result, IM for Iowa can take an unlimited amount of contributions and does not have to reveal its contributors or how it spends its money. However, it is highly questionable how a building a grassroots movement in Iowa for causes like advocating Clean Elections can be a moneymaking, for-profit entity. IM for Iowa does not sell any product or produce anything of tangible commercial value. People who give money to it have no idea where their money went. In fact Fallon admitted that he has been paying himself from IM for Iowa’s coffers, stating that “both Lynn and I took a small draw on the business.” Fallon compared his actions to that of former Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti who received a salary from Casey’s, a family owned chain of conveniences stores that is a publicly traded stock on NASDAQ and subject to a wide array of federal disclosure laws. IM For Iowa is not subject to any federal disclosure laws, let alone traded on NASDAQ.
Last month, Fallon attacked Leonard Boswell for receiving a $5000 contribution from an AT&T sponsored PAC and then for voting for one version of telecom immunity. Regardless of whether one morally approves of Leonard Boswell taking a donation from a PAC, it is both clearly legal and the donation is fully disclosed. The public knows who gave money to Leonard Boswell and has the ability to raise questions about it. Fallon’s conduct with IM For Iowa raises some serious legal questions but most importantly, it raises the question of who is giving money to Ed Fallon and what are they getting in return?
Fallon’s political reputation is that of someone who values principle above all else, even at his own expense. But when he’s running an organization like IM for Iowa that seems to be deliberately structured to avoid any financial disclosure that undermines everything Ed Fallon has seemingly stood for in his decade and a half in public life. On one hand, Ed Fallon stands for clean elections, on the other, he is engaging in political activity that clearly violates the spirit of the election law he considers far too weak, (not to mention the actual law himself). Ed Fallon needs to make public all pertinent records and tax filings of IM for Iowa immediately. After all, if he has behaved ethically and has nothing to hide, it would only reinforce his reputation for probity. But if Fallon does not come clean, his reputation for honesty will be permanently tainted, if not destroyed.
March 20th, 2008
Former Speaker Pro Tem Danny Carroll is running for Iowa House of Representatives again. Carroll, once labeled a rising star in Republican circle was decisively trounced by State Rep Eric Palmer in 2006. This was despite Carroll running a dirty campaign that included push polls and libelous mailings. Carroll was also discredited when it was revealed that he had taken part in a scheme to defraud an elderly widow.
Although Carroll may have some added credibility due to his support of Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses, it still doesn’t change the fact that he’s a sleazeball and a swindler. If the best candidate the Republicans find for any race down to dogcatcher is someone with as little moral character as Danny Carroll, it shows the desperate straits that the GOP is now in.
March 12th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts
