Search Results for ‘pac money’
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
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
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
February 13th, 2007
Dave Loebsack, Iowa’s newly elected Congressman from the 2nd District has been raising money from Political Action Committees at an incredible rate since Election Day. Between Election Day and the end of the year, Loebsack raised $71,000, most of which came from PACs. In contrast, over the last five weeks of the election, Loebsack raised less than $40,000 from PACs. All the money that Loebsack received from PACs made him the leading fundraiser among all House freshmen. In fact, despite Loebsack’s lefty credentials, his contributors include a Houston law firm run by a Bush Pioneer and the American Bankers Association. As the Des Moines Register notes, Loebsack’s cash windfall stands in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Jim Leach, who didn’t accept money from PACs. In 2006, Loebsack and Leach combined raised less than one million dollars, which was the lowest combined total, by far, of any competitive race in the country. It certainly looks like things are going to be a lot more expensive in 2008.
February 5th, 2007
It’s been an exciting time for third tier Republican candidates. Duncan Hunter officially declared his candidacy for President today. Hunter doesn’t have much money, name recognition or support but he does have Chuck Yeager’s endorsement for his quixotic quest for the Presidency. Hunter and his rather Orwellianly monikered PAC, Peace Through Strength, are leading the fight on the most important issue facing our country today, the evilness of China (to be precise, Red China).
However, he’s not alone in the fight against China. Tom Tancredo recently introduced a bill “To require additional tariffs be imposed on products of any nonmarket economy country” until that country has a market economy. This bill not only helps protect Americans from the Chinese threat but also helps defend Americans from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cambodia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. It’s good to see that Tom Tancredo is not just interested in protecting America from illegal immigrants but is also committed to leading the fight against Albania as well.
Finally, it seems that one other Republican candidate, Michael Jesus Archangel (website here, blurb here) hasn’t yet visited Iowa, which is not the sign of a serious candidate. However, he hasn’t engaged in Albania bashing either so it’s too soon to tell
January 25th, 2007
So John Kerry said that we made a mistake by going into Iraq and then Bush and the Republicans said that his remarks were insulting to the troops…again. This latest rendition of the familiar tune evokes a series of responses. So let’s just move beyond the fact that Kerry’s remarks were pretty much true, even if in poor taste, and the chagrin of seeing yet another flashback to 2004.
We’re all pretty hyper-sensitive to anything that might possibly in the slightest way impact the outcome on Tuesday. In Iowa it seems to have devolved into the implication that if you have any connection to John Kerry then you too hate the troops and America and are in fact working in cahoots with the terrorists.
Jeff Lamberti, the Republican candidate in Iowa’s third congressional district, says his opponent — Democrat Congressman Leonard Boswell — should give back the money Kerry’s donated and still raising for Boswell’s campaign. “Leonard Boswell should be calling on John Kerry to apologize…and quite frankly, ought to be giving back the east coast special interest money that agrees with John Kerry on this,” Lamberti says.
This is almost too ridiculous to warrant debunking. Both Boswell and Lamberti receive money from out-of-state sources, and there is nothing wrong with that–every candidate does. Furthermore, candidates receive donations from many different sources and that doesn’t mean that they believe everything that the donor believes. Lamberti takes this preposterous assumption one step further to say that Boswell shouldn’t take contributions from friends of John Kerry.
The point is that Republicans are trying to turn this into the Democrat’s Foley, but I don’t think it takes much insight to see that John Kerry’s remarks about Iraq are in no way as reprehensible as Mark Foley propositioning an under-aged page via instant message. As Vilsack points out in the same report:
“(Kerry) obviously made a mistake and it’s an unfortunate mistake but you know what really is unfortunate is that we’re talking about this instead of the fact that 105 American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq in October in one of the deadliest months in that war.”
One can only hope that Democrats everywhere will adopt this reasoned response, and keep the focus on the job that Bush and the Republicans have done in office, because their record pretty much speaks for itself.
November 1st, 2006
In the past couple days pretty much all anyone is talking about are the candidates’ reports filed yesterday on money raised and spent. The reports are available on the IECDB website.
If you want a good summary, see what Chris Woods over at Political Forecast has to say. He has a good post exclusively on the gubernatorial race, where Culver has out-fundraised Nussle by $200,000. It is certainly interesting to see who’s been donating, including a selection of presidential hopefuls.
Looking closer to home in Grinnell’s State House race in the last quarter (July 15-Oct 14)
Danny Carroll
CoH: $35,808.04
Cash contributions: $94,367.40
In-kind contributions: $104,239.94
Expenditures: $85,435.83
Debt: $0
Eric Palmer
CoH: $11,487.12
Cash contributions: $60,095.60
In-Kind contributions: $40,233.94
Expenditures: $65,226.97
Debt: $0
Clearly it isn’t great news to see that Carroll has more money than Palmer at this point in the game, and Palmer certainly could’ve used the money from Warner’s PAC. However, I also know that Palmer has been working tirelessly on this campaign, and it seems impossible that someone could meet both the candidates and not come away with a better impression of Eric.
October 20th, 2006
Mike Gronstal and Mary Lundby are calling for a vote on anti-bullying legislation to protect gay students. Pat Murphy spoke to this issue when he came to our Campus Dems meeting last week, and Advocate.com notes the same pesky roadblock to which he alluded: Chris Rants. What does Rants find wrong with protecting GLBT students from verbal and physical harassment in school, you might ask? Here’s a charming quote: “We need to protect fat kids, kids with glasses, kids who are too smart, kids who aren’t too smart…. Schools should be a safe place regardless of whatever sets you apart.”
New York Governor George Pataki is opening an office in Des Moines this week, making him the first presidential hopeful to do so. New York Public Radio even calls it a “campaign office,” and doesn’t mention Freedom PAC, to whom the headquarters technically belongs.
The Register leads with both Culver and Nussle encountering a skeptical crowd at a VFW meeting Saturday, but based on the article, it sounds like Nussle had a harder time of it. Culver was asked where he would get the money to fund his proposals to help veterans, and responded with concrete plans to streamline the state budget and utilize the tax surplus. Nussle, on the other hand, was confronted with his anti-veteran congressional voting record, and replied, “My grandmother always taught me growing up that actions speak louder than words. Every opportunity I’ve had, when I’ve been chairman, I’ve increased the budget over what the president, over what the budget … recommended.” I’ll let you insert something snarky of your own here.
A new Register poll shows Hillary Clinton losing Iowa to four Republican potentials. It also finds that 57% of respondents think it is a bad idea for Vilsack to run for president.
Oh, and CIETC is thinking of changing its name.
September 25th, 2006
Mark Warner’s PAC, Forward Together, is holding an online vote to determine which Iowa legislature candidates it will give $5000 (House) or $6500 (Senate). It’s a great perk that presidential hopefuls do this sort of thing in Iowa, since that amount of money really makes a huge difference in a state race.
Please cast your vote for Eric Palmer now.
Eric Palmer is challenging extremist conservative Danny Carroll, who he came painfully close to unseating in ‘04. Carroll has had the benefit of visits from conservative fundraising powerhouses John “I’m a panderer not a uniter” McCain, Sam “I hate evolution” Brownback, Haley “I hate Jews and Blacks” Barbour, and Newt “My conservatism doesn’t need explaining” Gingrich. He’s also received a ton of money from convicted felon Thomas Grabinski.
Just to remind you a little more why Eric Palmer deserves your vote (as if you haven’t heard our spiel before), Carroll is also known for his attempts to suppress Grinnell College students’ votes and his outlandish ideas about gay marriage.
Please take a moment to make Mark Warner give Eric some dollas.
September 19th, 2006
Tuesday, Danny Carroll is hosting a fundraiser in a private room on Grinnell College’s campus with John McCain. It’s no secret that McCain has run to the right (Exhibit A), but he has never quite been the hero everyone thinks he is (Exhibit B).
But for anyone who is still attached to the idea of John McCain the “straight-talker” (and the “straight talk” motif kind of outlives its purpose when the attribution is plastered all over his PAC web site, straighttalkamerica.com), know that the candidate he’s shilling for is very much not a straight talker. Here are some of the very un-straight claims Danny Carroll has made:
- Grinnell College students should not have the right to vote for their state representative (in this 2004 mailing).
- Gay marriage is a bad idea because it would allow two men to marry for business reasons (in the 2004 Grinnell College SCIPE-sponsored debate).
- He was the reason why Newton — about 15 minutes away from his house district — got its new speedway and stadium (in the 2006 “Carroll Chronicle”, which Danny sent out in the newspaper in Oskaloosa and Grinnell).
John McCain became popular when he ran against George W. Bush, because he was the Republican everyone wanted to win the primary. Then Bush smeared him, and McCain fell into line. Now it’s McCain’s turn to be front-runner, and he won’t be outflanked (or out-Roved) by anyone this time. For a campaign based on “straight talk,” he seems to spend a little too much time raising money for people like Danny Carroll.
Of course, this means Eric Palmer could use your money now more than ever.
August 14th, 2006
Previous Posts
