Without question, this past week was good for the future of the Iowa caucuses. State Senator Kent Sorenson was pressured to resign after a special investigator found probable cause that he lied about evading Iowa Senate rules against being paid by presidential campaigns. Thanks to improved coordination between the Republican Party of Iowa and Iowa Democratic Party, the 2014 off-year caucuses will be held simultaneously, as usual. Both developments should take ammunition away from critics who point to potential cheating during the Iowa caucus process.

Now it’s up to Iowa lawmakers to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption from undermining our state’s role during the 2016 presidential race.  

I totally disagree with the perspective of Kathie Obradovich, who thinks the Sorenson scandal will help the Iowa caucuses in 2016 because people will be watching relationships between lawmakers and presidential candidates more closely.

Sorenson was particularly sleazy, but he was also unlucky. If Michele Bachmann’s former campaign consultant Peter Waldron had not gone to the trouble to file a formal ethics complaint against Sorenson, few people would know about the apparently illegal payment scheme. If a former Ron Paul campaign official had not dumped a bunch of documents and recordings on Craig Robinson, few people would know the extent of Sorenson’s efforts to gain financially from switching sides.

I also disagree with Robinson’s claim that the thorough investigation “should help prevent incidents like this from happening in the future.” It’s just dumb luck that Waldron was committed to exposing Sorenson’s malfeasance. Even then, the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee was one vote away from burying Waldron’s complaint.

Special investigator Mark Weinhardt did an excellent job explaining why Sorenson likely flouted the prohibition on being paid by a candidate’s committee. But Weinhardt also acknowledged that the Iowa Senate ethics rule is vague. I would hope that few Iowa legislators would try to profit from endorsing a presidential candidate, but anyone with those kind of entrepreneurial tendencies could avoid Sorenson’s troubles by being a little more careful.

When the legislature is back in session, the Iowa Senate should spell out what is meant by direct or indirect employment by a candidate’s committee. What specific activities are prohibited? Does that include paid work by a senator’s spouse or another member of the senator’s immediate family? What about profiting by renting office space to a presidential campaign, or to a consultant or political action committee working on behalf of a presidential candidate?

The Iowa House does not prohibit paid work by state representatives for outside campaigns. I would encourage lawmakers to rethink that position to avoid any appearance of state representatives being for sale. Even if the current practice is continued, more detailed rules could help ensure that campaign jobs don’t become a cover for bribes.

Amending Iowa House and Senate ethics rules may not be enough. Perhaps some changes to Iowa law are warranted too.

The Iowa caucuses already are accused of being unrepresentative because of the many barriers to participation. (Caucus turnout is typically lower than turnout in statewide primaries.) Let’s not give presidential candidates any more excuses to skip ahead to New Hampshire.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- Here’s some free advice for Des Moines Register editors. It’s not helpful to make readers sit through a video of Obradovich reading her blog post out loud. When video doesn’t add any value, as in this case, just put up the blog post.