It is increasingly unlikely that Ed Fallon will win the Third District Primary as his campaign is both broke and languishing far behind Leonard Boswell in the polls. The question now arises what will professional candidate Ed Fallon run for next? Fallon is a professional candidate at this point (and, thanks to the still open Fallon Loophole, can still make a good living running for office). There are several possibilities for Fallon. The first is running for Mayor of Des Moines against Frank Cownie in 2011. Cownie is a leading environmentalist, which makes him a prime target for Fallon who actively worked to defeat Al Gore in 2000. However, that election is three years away and the Mayor of Des Moines only makes $31,500 a year. Fallon would be much better served continuing his I’M For Iowa gig rather embarking so soon on a campaign for a weak office so far in the future.
Another possibility is Polk County Supervisor. This job pays $93,000, which is more than Ed Fallon has ever lapped up from the public trough in a single year so far. However, Fallon lives in the area represented by John Mauro. Although Mauro’s reputation has been tainted by association with CIETC, Fallon’s ethical lapses in regards for IM for Iowa and his attempts to cover up that misconduct make Mauro look like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. While Fallon has never showed any fear of entering in races he’s likely to lose, it seems unlikely he’d want to tangle with La Macchina in a district that is almost entirely on the South Side. This is especially true when Fallon is probably the only candidate who Christine Hensley would support a Mauro over.
Fallon could also run for State Senate against Jack Hatch in 2010. Although Hatch endorsed Boswell, he was one of two State Senators to vote against closing the Fallon Loophole and unlike most other elected Democrats in Polk County, he has not been vehemently opposed to Fallon and has even attended a Fallon event or two as a polite observer. However, in Fallon’s political career, loyalty has not been one of Fallon’s most notable traits. He endorsed Nader in 2000, considered running as a third party candidate against Chet Culver in 2006 and refused a pledge to support all Democrats on the ticket in 2002. (One wonders whether Fallon was more conflicted about supporting Tom Harkin or Tom Vilsack.) In that light, stabbing Jack Hatch in the back seems like small potatoes. However, while Hatch’s district includes many places Fallon has represented in the past, a State Senator only makes about $30,000 a year and as a state candidate, Fallon could lose income in the remaining interval if the Legislature actually closes the Fallon Loophole and keeps Fallon from paying himself from campaign contributions. But there is one office Ed Fallon could run for where he would never have to worry about the Iowa Legislature cutting into his earnings.
Chuck Grassley is up for Senate in 2010 and Fallon would make an admirable Democratic nominee. Aside from giving Fallon the chance to earn nearly $170,000, he could pay himself a salary without worrying about any legislation from Rick Olson to cut off the gravy train. It would also be the one office where Fallon would not have to primary an incumbent and would have a chance to receiving the backing of the entire Democratic establishment as Ed Fallon possesses a very rare skill that is essential to running against Grassley. After all, what politician in Iowa has more experience and talent at turning receiving only 25% of the vote into a victory?
No matter what office Ed Fallon runs for in the future, there is one thing for certain. Professional political candidate Ed Fallon will be running for office again.
May 5th, 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
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
