Search Results for ‘state donors’
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
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
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
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was in Iowa this week to speak at the “Get Motivated” seminar in Des Moines, raise cash for Lamberti and Nussle, and help sap 50,000 dollars of the state’s cash (what, do you think George Forman was drawing traffic?).
Of course there was another not-so-secret reason America’s mayor was in town—to work Iowa voters and donors in the initial stages of a possible run for President. When asked whether he’s planning to run, he responded:
I’ve got a lot of places to go, and a lot of people to talk to; a long process of figuring out whether it makes sense to run for president in 2008. I don’t know the answer to that yet.
As a native New Yorker and now an Iowan, let me help answer the question—don’t run. Not now, not ever.
Sure, since September 11th, Rudy Giuliani has been getting more good press than Barak Obama (a tall order), and he’s often credited with cleaning up New York and helping to make it the safe city it is today (even though serious crime began to fall drastically during the previous Democratic mayor’s term), but few outside of New York know the other side of Giuliani; the Rudy who policed morality and speech, who flouted the constitution, and who gutted funding for the city’s poor.
At a time when our civil liberties are under attack, Giuliani, who, while Mayor, won only 4 of 26 first-amendment related cases in court, is the last thing the country needs. Here’s a sample of some choice Rudy moments.
In 1999, after the Brooklyn Museum of Art displayed a controversial painting, Giuliani tried to cut the museum’s public financing and terminate its lease. He then threatened to “cut off city financing to any other publicly supported cultural institution” that similarly failed to censor itself. Soon after, he proposed starting a commission on “decency” to review all of the city’s cultural institutions and make recommendations on financing.
In order to cut drunk driving, the Mayor attempted to institute a plan that gave police officers who suspected someone had been drunk driving “the authority to seize a person’s car, sell it and funnel the proceeds to the city — even if the driver turns out to be innocent.” Sure drunk driving is a serious offense and laws against it should be enforced aggressively—but selling a person’s property for a crime they haven’t been convicted of? Maybe Rudy forgot the law part of law and order.
As for helping the city’s poor, the Giuliani administration reduced capital spending on affordable housing by 44% and cut back on the creation of apartments for homeless households by 75%.
And those are just a few of the real winners. Thankfully, he supports a woman’s right to choose, gun control, and gay rights, so he’s socially liberal enough to flop in a Republican primary.
But if some cruel twist of fate gives Rudy a legitimate shot at being President, Iowans should keep in mind who Giuliani really is– a callous bully and a culture cop.
May 4th, 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
