Search Results for ‘iowa staff’
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
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
While Christopher Rants proclaimed that Iowa House Republicans will regain their majority as the party of health care and education, the two leading staffers at the Republican Party of Iowa were fired by new Chairman Stu Iverson. While Iowa Republicans had a mixed record in 2004 and a colossal collapse in 2006, it doesn’t help to be starting from scratch nine months before the election. Rants can talk about how vulnerable Eric Palmer or Elesha Gayman are until he turns blue in the face but if there is no party infrastructure behind their challengers, he’ll still be talking about how Palmer and Gayman are vulnerable incumbents in 2010. The Republicans do not have the necessary campaign infrastructure and if their message is to run against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton on health care, they’re not going to have much luck with that either.
February 16th, 2008
Bill Richardson started his campaign as a moderate Democrat who was running based on a rather impressive resume as Governor, Cabinet Member, Diplomat and Congressman. He talked about his experience balancing budgets and opposing gun control. However, Richardson’s campaign has recently changed its tack dramatically. While Richardson still emphasizes his background as a pro-gun moderate in rural areas, he’s now become the peacenik candidate in the rest of Iowa.
Richardson has come out as the only major Presidential candidate to support withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in six months and filmed an ad with bloggers endorsing his policy. He has phased out wearing an American flag lapel pin in favor of the Sensible Priorities pin.
The most extreme sign of Richardson’s tack to the left was his recent hiring of Dave Rogers as his political director. Rogers worked on Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign and was reported by reliable sources to be staffing Kucinich at events as recently as this spring. Rogers has also worked for Western Iowa’s answer to Dennis Kucinich, Joyce Schulte, as well as for the Sensible Priorities campaign.
In contrast, the political directors for 1st tier Presidential campaigns are longtime Iowa political operatives (Chris Hayler for Clinton, Emily Parcell for Obama) or national operatives (Tim Maloney for Edwards). However, they focus on getting the support of legislators, major activists and organized labor. It seems that Rogers will be focusing on the anti-war left (as it is doubtful that someone who operated a salon and day spa is the right person to reach out to the UAW).
Rogers’ hiring further reinforces that Bill Richardson is making a very determined effort to reach out not just anti-war Democrats but, specifically, to the core of peace activists who supported Kucinich in 2004. Although peaceniks are a relatively small bloc, they are very likely caucusgoers. If Richardson is still around 10% then, peace activists could play a decisive role in propping Richardson in up in many precincts and making him viable.
But this is a dangerous balancing game for a candidate who started running as a moderate. Richardson has already lost one key supporter due to his swing to the left and Hotline, among others, finds his policy shift not plausible. Richardson is playing a very delicate balancing game trying to woo both the most conservative caucusgoers and the most liberal over the next ten weeks. If it works, Richardson might become a first tier candidate. But if it doesn’t, Richardson will not only lose but could so in a way that undermines his credibility as a politician in the future.
October 16th, 2007
As Chris Cilizza reports, Joe Biden is staking his entire campaign on a strong performance in Iowa. He has moved almost his entire national staff into Iowa in hopes of a strong performance in the caucuses. Biden seems to hope that this increased focus, combined with support from many Iowa legislators (including his recent endorsement by Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta). His strategy, as reported by Marc Ambinder seems solid, based on having surrogates hit smaller towns with a particular focus on the blue collar Democratic counties along the Mississippi River. However, there is one inherent flaw. Ambinder notes that Biden has “nine field offices and 23 full-time staffers” which is puny compared to the number of staffers and field offices that Obama, Edwards and Clinton have. In fact, even Chris Dodd has 59 full-time staffers on the ground in Iowa right now.
Not only does Biden have very few staffers, they aren’t very experienced either. According to this roster of Biden field staff. Six out of his 14 field staffers (all of whom are titled Regional Field Directors) have never worked on a campaign before. And of those who have worked on a campaign, most have worked on campaigns for Chicago alderman or Colorado Board of Education, not for major statewide or federal offices. The ground game is crucial in the Iowa Caucuses and with the limited field program that he has, Biden is in trouble. Unless Biden is able to fully tap into the organizations of the legislators to endorse him, he will not do well in Iowa and get one of the proverbial “three tickets out of Iowa” that go to the top three finishers in the caucuses. Unless things change, Biden’s hoped for third place finish will be just like Joe Lieberman’s “third place finish” when he went all out in New Hampshire in 2004. A third place finish that actually means he finished fifth.
September 26th, 2007
I had intended to liveblog this event but got stuck in an overflow room with no option of standing in the back. I’m not sure how many updates I’ll be posting as this event starts in a few minutes…
…that situation has been remedied. Read on for liveblogging. Sorry for typos, etc., but this is all being typed on a Blackberry pseudo-keyboard.
State rep Mark Smith is on now talking about the successes Dems have had in Iowa and about history. He compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Then he makes sure to note that he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet and that it’s too early for him to make an endorsement.
Obama is on now. He thanks Mark Smith and volunteers who helped with the event. He says Iowa and Illinois are a lot alike, except Illinois has Chicago.
…He’s going over his bio and tieing that in to the purpose of politics…
Now he’s on to the issues. Goes down list of problems we face; gets applause at the end when he says he was against the war from the beginning. Casts himself as Washington outsider and gets more applause. It sounds like he hasn’t quite memorized his stump speech yet, because it has been a little choppy.
Says we can use ethanol just like Brazil. Says using incentives can make capitalism earth-friendly.
Mentions his senate bill on Iraq withdrawal and gets applause again. Says diplomacy is the answer and alludes to Marshall plan.
He is finishing his speech by talking about the importance of us getting involved and finally mentions briefly that he had a lot of small donors during the last quarter
Now questions…
First questionis on universal health care. Obama talks about preventative health care as part of the solution. He talks about obesity as an example of the problem, but he sounded a little critical of fat people - oops.
This answer is taking too long considering everyone already knows his position as it has been defined. .
Next question is from a peace activist on Israel and Palestine. Obama starts tip toeing…
Religious conflict between shia and sunni predates Israel, he says, dodging the original question.
Obama does believe that Israel-Palestine is serving to perpetuate problems in the reason.
He calls for two-state solution. Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop terrorism. US must be a part of negotiations. My pro-Israel friend just said Obamas answer won his vote.
Sandy shaver from UAW/Maytag asks about outsourcing. It turns out Barack Obama is against it.
Solution one is stop giving tax benefits for outsourcing.
Solution two is improving infrastructure like broadband.
Solution three is spending a lot of money on green technology (on the scale of the Manhattan project, he says).
Finally Obama says he supports both free trade and fair trade. My Econ major friends roll their eyes a but but it sounds good to me
That was all his answer to the outsourcing question.
Next question from a teacher is whether he will consult teachers on his education plans. He says his sister is a teacher (and yes, he will).
Everyone has to work to improve education: parents, students, community, etc.
Obama says he does support some of NCLB’s goals, including higher standards for students. But he thinks it needs to be more sensitive to individual students, and he thinks the funding situation needs reform.
Also he wants to increase teacher pay tied to some accountability measures.
Cute kid asks about year-round school. Obama says he might like the idea of changing the school calendar to avoid one long summer break.
Next question comes from an Iowan with a mental disability on employment possibilities. Obama praises tom harkin forhis work on the issue and promises to get one of his staff to help Him get in touch withthe right people.
Next question is ,what has happened to our democratic party? Dems are too friendly to big business and too soft on immigration.
Obama says you can’t be pro-worker without also being pro-employer. Question-asker isn’t satisfied and asks more specifically about immigration.
Obama supports more secure border and better I’d verification. But he also thinks that those people who are here can’t - and shouldn’t - be sent home.
Last question comes from a student about how expensive college is. He says student loan systemshould be reformed so banks are no longer making money on kids.
Obama is also in favor of expanding national service programs and offering to pay for education for kids who go into certain important professions (like teaching).
He closes by waving a supporter cardsnd asking is to get involved. More thoughts later
April 6th, 2007
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
March 21st, 2007
After the Edwards campaign released its list of “senior Iowa staff” the other day, I thought it might be prudent to discuss how each campaign’s staff is shaping up. Their differing approaches are interesting, at least, and they could make a difference by the time the caucuses come around next January.
First up, the Obama campaign has been doing quite a bit of hiring over the last month. All of their key positions (regional field director, state field director, state director, and deputy state director) are filled, and they are hiring on new field organizers every week. Some have compared Obama’s staff to Howard Dean’s from four years ago, because it seems to include an unusual number of ideologically motivated young people, many of whom have never worked a caucus before. Their typical field organizer offer, which is the lowest of the candidates reviewed here, is $2,000 per month. Because Senator Obama is so magnetic, they are having no trouble filling positions, but the low salary may not be enough to entice experienced operatives.
Next, the Edwards campaign has staffed all or most of its key positions as well, and has begun hiring field organizers. In contrast to Obama’s staff, most of Edwards’s staff so far have Iowa political experience, and many have also worked with state director Jennifer O’Malley or state field director Jackie Lee before. General impressions from folks seem to be that the Edwards staff has things together, that their hiring process is quicker and perhaps more organized than Obama’s, and that they already have a more specific plan in place. Their typical field organizer offer seems to be $2,500 per month.
And finally, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a bit slower to announce their hiring decisions here, but those whom they have hired have impressive resumes. Staffers who may not have significant Iowa experience but who have significant experience elsewhere are taking positions on the Clinton campaign that are well below where the staffers might be in most campaign hierarchies. Clinton is paying field organizers about $2,750 per month — the most of any candidate — although from what we know here, many positions have not been filled.
Beyond these “big three” campaigns, none of the others have hired (or begun to hire) a full staff here. Dodd, Richardson, and Biden all have a few folks on the ground here, but not enough to get a general impression yet.
How the staffing differences will affect the caucuses, nobody knows, but past caucuses have proven that staff strength can be a major factor in the final delegate counts. Without a sound field strategy in place, a campaign cannot win Iowa, and that takes a good staff.
March 20th, 2007
Last month, Hillary Clinton made a widely publicized visit to Iowa to kick off her Presidential campaign. However, since then, she has not been in Iowa at all and has no announced plans to visit again anytime in the future. She still has only assembled a barebones Iowa staff (though there is speculation she will inherit former Vilsack staffers). It seems very peculiar for such a major candidate to have such a minimal presence in Iowa compared to her competitors. Although the Clinton campaign is clearly focused on fundraising right now, it still seems to unwise to lay low in Iowa when John Edwards and Barack Obama have been visiting the state weekly.
February 25th, 2007
Previous Posts
