Although Ed Fallon claims Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold to be heroes, he diverges from Wellstone and Feingold on an important policy position, the so-called “Fallon Loophole.” The Fallon Loophole refers to the practice when politicians pay themselves salaries with campaign money, a practice typically considered to be unethical that the State Legislature tried to end during the last legislative session. Fallon attacked this bill as “status quo politics at its worst” and “a silly bill.” However, it seems two of the men Fallon would claim as heroes, Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold would strenuously disagree.
In 1995, John Kerry introduced an amendment to close the Fallon Loophole federally. Unfortunately, it failed but gained the support of Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold, not to mention Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy and every other committed progressive in the Senate.
However, a lot of people did agree with Ed Fallon that closing the Fallon Loophole was “a silly bill.” Fallon can claim the support of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum. They shared Ed Fallon’s belief that this bill represented “status quo politics at its worst.” It’s good to know that Ed Fallon can claim such distinguished company in his campaign to fight “the status quo” by lining his own pockets.
May 19th, 2008
Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.
March 3rd, 2007
