Come on, Tom Latham, you know you want to retire. It’s not fun being in the minority party, is it? And from the looks of things, Republicans will be in the minority for a long, long time.

Yesterday Don Cazayoux narrowly won a special election in Louisiana’s sixth Congressional district. That district has a partisan index of R+7, meaning that it votes about 7 percent more Republican than the national average. The GOP should have no trouble holding a seat in that kind of district.

Jonathan Singer put up a good post on what this means at MyDD. I liked this part:

The attacks linking Cazayoux to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama didn’t work. They simply didn’t. Yes, the Republicans pulled in more votes and a greater share of the vote than they did last month in the first round of balloting. So what. This is a very Republican district and yet despite of this lean and the fact that the GOP tried to make this election about Jeremiah Wright, they still lost.

This race was very much put forward by the chattering class as a referendum on Obama’s coattails (which proved to be strong in the very Republican-leaning Illinois 14th congressional district earlier this year), and Obama’s coattails passed the challenge. Simply put, the Republicans may have thought they had found a silver bullet in Obama and Wright (and Pelosi, too, for that matter), but they didn’t.

Markos keeps his post-election thoughts short and simple:

Tonight’s results will get picked apart for analysis by lots of people in the coming days. But in short, it will become obvious that Cazayoux’s margin of victory came from black votes — you disrespect that community at your own peril. And second of all, Republicans once again failed, in a blood red district, to scare voters into submission by running scary ads against scaaaary national Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

Voters, even in solidly conservative districts, are simply not that scared of Democrats anymore. It’s Bush they’re terrified of.

One last thought — Democrats now have a 235-199 advantage in the U.S. House. They started the cycle 233-202.

While I remain concerned about the possibility that John McCain could be the next president, it looks like this will be a banner year for the Democrats in the Congressional races.

By the way, if the Republicans can’t hold a seat with a partisan index of R+7, I don’t think we need to worry about Iowa’s third Congressional district, which is D+1.

UPDATE: Comedy gold, as Republicans try to spin this outcome as “a warning shot to Democrats”:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

Got this press release from Ed Fallon’s campaign today:

Fallon Receives PCCI-A Endorsement

Thursday, May 1, 2008 (3:30 PM CDT) – Ed Fallon today announced his endorsement by the Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa – Action (PCCI-A). Board President Vern Naffier notified Fallon today that the board of PCCI-A had voted unanimously to support him in his bid to unseat incumbent Congressman Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s Third District.

Fallon expressed his gratitude for the endorsement, saying, “I’m grateful to have the support of PCCI-A. These folks are community activists who have been working on issues that have always been a focus of my own political and community involvement.”

Earlier in the campaign, one of PCCI-A’s member organizations, STAR*PAC, also endorsed Fallon’s candidacy.

PCCI-A is a 501(c)(5) corporation that exists separately from PCCI, a 501(c)(3) organization. Naffier acknowledged that PCCI-A would not be making a financial contribution, as Fallon does not accept contributions from PACs and paid lobbyists.

Even if Fallon took money from PACs, the value of an endorsement like this can’t be measured in dollars.

It’s obvious that Congressman Leonard Boswell will be able to outspend Fallon in the traditional paid media, and it seems unlikely that Boswell will take a chance and debate Fallon on the issues.

Fallon’s best chance is to mobilize large numbers of progressive foot-soldiers, such as those in PCCI-A, to get out the vote for him. These people are well-known in their neighborhoods and have large social networks.

I don’t expect a very high turnout on June 3. This race is winnable for Fallon with enough people pounding the pavement for him.

A envelope from the Boswell campaign arrived in the mail today. Inside was a letter from Al Gore asking me to donate $20.00 to Boswell’s campaign, symbolizing the 2000 election “when Leonard stood by my side”. The text was identical to a recent e-mail Gore sent out on Boswell’s behalf, which I reproduced at the end of this post.

Unlike Matt Stoller, who is mad that Gore is helping Boswell’s campaign, I can’t fault him for getting involved. It won’t change the minds of many Gore voters like myself, who favor Fallon, but it might activate other Gore supporters who are unreliable primary voters.

Frankly, I’m more annoyed at Gore for sitting out this presidential election. He would have been a much better candidate, and probably a much better president, than either Hillary or Obama.  

But what’s done is done.

Getting back to the third district primary, I received a copy of an e-mail sent out by Wesley Clark’s political action committee, WesPAC, which solicits donations for the Congressional campaigns of three veterans, including Boswell. Here are the relevant portions of that e-mail:

Dear [Recipient],

We need veterans like Ashwin Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell in Congress to lead us out of Iraq  and to support our troops. Click  here to donate to their campaigns today!

It’s no surprise that a war veteran, Senator Jim Webb,  has led the fight in expanding the GI Bill to give our troops the  education benefits they were promised. Those who have worn the uniform know first-hand how much our troops have sacrificed and what it takes to  support members of the armed forces.

That’s why it was critical our community helped elect  Jim Webb in 2006, and it’s also the reason I’m backing three veterans who  are running for Congress this fall. Though 30,000 Americans have signed a  petition in support of Senator Webb’s GI Bill, our opponents are already  weakening the bill because it is too “generous” for our troops.  We need more veterans in Congress who will help bring our soldiers home  from Iraq and stand up for those who have defended our nation.

Join me and support veteran candidates Ashwin  Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell by donating to their campaigns  today!

[…]

Leonard  Boswell

In 2006, WesPAC helped Leonard Boswell fight off a  “swiftboat” attempt on him in Iowa, and our efforts helped  re-elect Leonard. As a 20-year veteran of the Army, he too supports an  expanded GI Bill for our veterans and has pushed for increases in funding  for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We can’t afford to lose a true American hero like  Leonard in Congress, and we can’t take it for granted that the right-wing  won’t smear him again this November. Help re-elect Congressman Boswell  by donating to his campaign now!

http://www.actblue.com/page/3vets

The insight of those who serve in the armed forces is  too often lost in our nation’s dialogue about foreign policy, health  care, education, and veterans issues. With your support, we’ll strengthen  the voices of those who have risked their lives for our country by sending 3 veterans to Congress in 2008.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

I wish Boswell or one of his high-profile supporters would defend the Congressional votes that prompted Ed Fallon to run in this primary. But from the incumbent’s perspective, the less said about that, the better.

I posted this around the blogosphere on Monday, but forgot to cross-post here. -desmoinesdem

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign has been giving the incumbent an image makeover as the June 3 primary approaches.

I learned from direct-mail pieces this month that Boswell is “Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need,” as well as “working to bring the troops home every day” and “Taking on powerful interests” to deliver health care to all Iowans.

These campaign communications bring to mind Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote: “What you do shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

Progressive Kick has created a website that shows in quite an entertaining way what Boswell has been doing during his six terms in Congress. Let’s just say he hasn’t been much of a crusader against powerful interests.

Join me after the jump for more.

Progressive Democrats of America, a grassroots political action committee (PAC) created in 2004, endorsed Ed Fallon today in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. The Des Moines chapter of the group had previously endorsed Fallon last month.

A press release from the Fallon campaign quoted the candidate as saying,

“PDA is pleased that I’m challenging Congressman Boswell due to his record on voting with the Republicans to support President Bush’s agenda on the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless surveillance, torture, ‘free-trade’ agreements, bankruptcy ‘reform’ that hurts the middle class, and billions in corporate welfare for big oil and gas companies.”

[…]

“Because I’ve never taken money from PACs or paid lobbyists, PDA won’t be making a contribution to my campaign,” Fallon said, “but they will encourage their members to make individual contributions. They want to help give our next president a Democratic congressman who will support progressive, Democratic policies.”

The full text of the press release is after the jump.

Other national organizations that have endorsed Fallon include eQualityGiving and Democracy for America.

Des Moines Register reporter Thomas Beaumont wrote an article for Thursday’s edition about the Boswell’s campaign’s Ralph Nader direct-mail pieces, which I diaried here and here.

I had been wondering why Boswell was playing the Nader card with six weeks to go in the campaign, and Beaumont advances a strong hypothesis:

The two mailings circulated this week in Iowa’s 3rd District mark a stepped-up effort by Boswell, a six-term Des Moines Democrat, to cast doubt on Fallon’s loyalty to the party. The mailings coincide with the distribution of absentee ballots for the June 3 primary.

Meanwhile, Al Gore sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal on behalf of Boswell, which I’ve put after the jump.

In other news, KCCI television released the first public poll of the Democratic primary in the third district. It shows Boswell leading Fallon 52-28, with 20 percent undecided. Boswell’s campaign manager, Mark Daley, said the poll shows

what we’ve seen all along. We’ve got a congressman who’s been there. Who’s been very effective” […]

Fallon told KCCI:

“If I were Boswell, I’d be really concerned that only 52 percent of Democrats was supporting me. An incumbent is usually a lot better after serving for 12 years,” […]

“People are very unhappy with Boswell’s continued support for the war. His lack of leadership on environmental issues,” Fallon said.

My big question about this poll is what turnout model did KCCI use? I don’t think anyone in either campaign has any idea how many Democrats will vote in this primary. About 38,000 people in the third district voted in the June 2006 gubernatorial primary.

Fallon presumably has a better chance if turnout is low, because his supporters are highly motivated to vote for him, and his campaign is focused on a field operation to identify those supporters.

Boswell has better name recognition and more money to spend on paid media, so he would probably benefit from high turnout in the primary.

Ed Fallon’s campaign put out a press release yesterday challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell to agree to debate him. I’ve put the whole release after the jump, but here is a key excerpt:

Fallon has received invitations to eight debates and has accepted them all. “Unfortunately,” Fallon said, “Boswell has declined debate invitations from WHO Radio, the League of Women Voters, and Women for a Stronger America. Some of these groups have issued multiple invitations since February and have yet to receive any response from the Boswell campaign.”

“Clearly, with our economy in shambles, skyrocketing gas prices and no end in sight to the Iraq War, voters want to know how Boswell and I differ in our plans to address these and other pressing issues,” Fallon said.

Debate organizers have told Fallon’s staff that the Boswell campaign insists the Congressman is too busy in Washington to participate. “That’s puzzling,” Fallon said, “since the Congressman made time for the Drake Relays Parade this weekend and appears able to attend many fundraisers. I think in this case, actions speak louder than words.”

I contacted Boswell’s campaign to find out if he had indeed cited his busy Washington schedule as an excuse not to debate Fallon.

Press secretary Betsy Shelton e-mailed me today to say, “We are currently working with KCCI and the Des Moines Register to see if we can find a date that is mutually acceptable.”

Here’s hoping the candidates will debate at least once or twice before June 3.

Fallon’s press release also responds to recent direct-mail pieces from the Boswell campaign highlighting Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. Click “there’s more” to read the whole thing.

My husband dumped this in the recycling bin today, thinking it was the same mailing we got from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign yesterday. But no, although it uses the same color scheme and the same “scary font,” this is indeed a separate mailing emphasizing Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000.

I’ve transcribed the piece that arrived today after the jump.

I still don’t have any information about Congressman Leonard Boswell’s internal polling, and six weeks before the June 3 primary, there are still no public polls on this race. However, it’s notable that the Boswell campaign has sent out a negative direct-mail piece focusing on Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign.

My husband and I received the latest mailing today. Most of the text is in a bizarre font, in which the letters are not aligned properly and each letter looks as if a tiny piece has been broken off or torn away. The effect is to make the text look unstable, somewhat like a ransom note.

I know nothing about graphic design and have no idea what this kind of font is called. For lack of a better term, I’m calling it the “scary font” in this post.

After the jump I’ve described the visuals and transcribed the text of this mailer.

On Friday my husband and I received the latest direct-mail piece from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign. Like his recent mailings about the economy and the Iraq War, this piece portrays Boswell as a fighter.

It’s not very subtle, with five references to Boswell “taking on” the opposition and three references to him fighting or not being afraid of a fight.

I’ve described the layout of the four-page mailer and transcribed its text after the jump.

Progressive Kick launched this website today, which asks, “Who Does Congressman Leonard Boswell Pull For?–Iowans or Special Interests?

The site links to Progressive Punch tables showing Boswell’s voting record on key issues, and also to Open Secrets tables showing how much money Boswell has raised from various types of interest groups.

If you are not familiar with the Progressive Punch Congressional rankings and scorecards, or with the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets website, you should be. Those sites contain a lot of important information about our representatives.

UPDATE: Progressive Kick sent me the following press release this afternoon:

Progressive Kick Unveils Animated Web Site Spotlighting Congressman Leonard Boswell’s Voting Record & Campaign Contributions

4/18 For Immediate Release –

whoreallyownscongress.com/Boswell was unveiled today by Progressive Kick. The new web site powerfully demonstrates the links between Congressman Leonard Boswell’s (Democrat – Iowa 3rd) voting record and his campaign contributions. Joshua Grossman, Progressive Kick’s president, said that “the new site is an extremely fun place to learn about Boswell, complete with informative and entertaining animation.”

The site depicts the ways Iowans are being abandoned by Boswell by linking his voting records drawn from the Congressional votes web site, ProgressivePunch.org, along with campaign contributor information from the leading campaign finance web site, OpenSecrets.org.

Joshua Grossman went on to say that “I know of no other web site that presents so much information about a member of Congress’ voting record in such an easy to absorb way as does whoreallyownscongress.com/Boswell.”

Progressive Kick plans to profile many other members of Congress in the months ahead. Grossman said that “Progressive Kick is committed to enabling Iowans and all Americans to learn the truth about their members of Congress.”

Please visit whoreallyownscongress.com/Boswell to verify these claims for yourself! For more information, please contact admin@progressivekick.org.

The non-profit Public Campaign advocates for public financing of campaigns, which “makes elections about voters and not lobbyists and campaign donors.”  

The group has declared April 14-18 “Fair Elections Action Week”:

The Fair Elections Now Act, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) and its companion legislation in the House represent our best chance to date to see the Clean Elections public financing programs that have been so successful at the state level be enacted for Congress. In the midst of an election season when campaign fundraising and campaign spending are at an all time high, we need to rally behind legislation that will drastically reduce the influence of special interest money on elections, and put the focus of candidates for federal office back on the voters.

I’m proud to say that Senator Tom Harkin is among the co-sponsors of the Durbin bill. As we’ve reported at Bleeding Heartland, Harkin is no slouch when it comes to fundraising under the current system; he started this year with more than $3 million in the bank. Yet Harkin has the good sense to support clean elections reform.

The excessive influence of moneyed interests in Washington is obvious to anyone who follows Congress closely. If we can take a step toward reducing the role money plays in our elections, we may be able to make progress on a lot of other issues.

Unfortunately, Congressman Leonard Boswell is not on board with the House bill on public financing, as this letter to the editor by a former Common Cause intern mentions. It would be great if he had a change of heart on this issue, but that seems unlikely.

Can any Boswell supporter explain to me why he hasn’t stepped up to co-sponsor this bill?

By the way, as you probably know already, Ed Fallon would support this election reform at the federal level. He has strongly advocated for the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary public financing system similar to those which enjoy massive bipartisan support in Maine and Arizona.

I wasn’t surprised to get this e-mail from the Boswell campaign today:

Iowa Corn Growers Association Votes to Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Iowa Corn Growers Association Political Action Committee (PAC) voted to endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am very pleased to accept the endorsement of the Iowa Corn Growers Association,” said Congressman Boswell.  “As a hands-on farmer, I have had a relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers for many years. The work they do is crucial to the success and prosperity of Iowa’s corn producers.”

“The Iowa Corn Growers Association appreciates Congressman Boswell’s current work on the Farm Bill.  He provides consistent leadership on behalf of Iowa farmers, and we look forward to working with him in the future out in Washington,” said Max Smith, committee member of the Iowa Corn Growers Association PAC.

The Iowa Corn Growers Association consists of nearly 6,000 members across the state of Iowa.

Boswell certainly is a steadfast supporter of the current federal agriculture policy, and large corn growers do profit from that policy.

Many people, including myself, think that policy benefits a relatively small number of relatively large farms. Corn subsidies in particular have been cited as a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic, as high-fructose corn syrup has been added to so many processed foods and drinks.

I would like to see a shift in our national agriculture policy, which would provide more support for conservation, crop diversity, local food networks and small farmers. I don’t expect much help from Boswell on those issues. But that works out great for large-scale corn growers.

I learned from the Iowa Voters blog that Steve King (IA-05) and Tom Latham (IA-04) were among the 85 percent of Republicans in the U.S. House who voted against New Jersey Democrat Rush Holt’s bill encouraging verifiable elections on Tuesday.

For details on the bill, click here. Here’s the gist:

H.R. 5036, as reported to the floor by the committee, would authorize funding to reimburse states with paperless jurisdictions that convert to paper-based voting systems in 2008 or provide emergency paper ballots that would be counted as regular ballots in the event of machine failure. The reimbursements would cover the cost of equipment conversion (from paperless touch screen machines to paper-based systems, such as optical scanners or computers with printers) and the cost of developing procedures for conducting hand-counted audits using independent, random selection of at least 2 percent of the precincts for audits under public observation.

Holt noted that two weeks ago, the House Administration Committee unanimously approved this bill. However, after the White House came out against the bill, 176 out of 203 Republicans fell in line.

At his blog, IowaVoter pointed out that the bill King and Latham voted against would have “re-imbursed Iowa for the expense of replacing our touchscreens.” (Two weeks ago Governor Chet Culver signed a law requiring all Iowa counties to use optical scanners and paper ballots.)

But no, King and Latham would rather rubber-stamp the Bush administration’s opposition to a bill that was voted unanimously out of committee.  

Congressman Leonard Boswell has been re-branding himself lately as someone who is “standing up to George Bush” and “taking on George Bush for the change we need”.

Which would be great, except that on some of the most important votes he has cast during the Bush presidency, Boswell has sided with George Bush and the Republican majority, rather than with the majority of his fellow House Democrats.

Today Ed Fallon’s campaign put out a press release highlighting one of those votes in connection with recent reports that Bush appointees at the highest level were involved in approving acts of torture.

Here is an excerpt:

Fallon notes his opponent Leonard Boswell, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has publicly expressed his disapproval of torture. “Unfortunately, it’s clear that his voting record is inconsistent with his public position,” says Fallon.

According to Congressional voting records, Congressman Boswell voted for the Military Commissions Act (S.3930, 09/27/06), which gave the President the ultimate authority to determine which interrogation techniques qualify as ‘torture.’ Fallon says, “Boswell sided with Bush and broke with 82% of House Democrats who voted against this bill.”

The Military Commissions Act also permits the admission of statements into evidence that were obtained by torture, as well as giving retroactive immunity to any officials who authorized acts of torture. It also suspends habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain hundreds of prisoners for years without ever filing charges against them.

The press release also notes that Boswell has to date declined to sign on to H.R. 952, which would prohibit the “extraordinary rendition” of people in U.S. custody to countries where they will be tortured.

I would like one Boswell supporter reading this to put up a comment or diary defending the incumbent’s vote on the Military Commissions Act. Explain to me why Boswell was right to let Bush appointees authorize torture, and let the president order people to be arrested and held without charges indefinitely.

The full text of Fallon’s press release is after the jump.

Yesterday I received another four-page direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign. Like one I got last week, this was paid for by Boswell for Congress and not the U.S. treasury. Also like the last mailer, it casts Boswell as someone who stands up to George Bush–in this case, on the war in Iraq.

The front page features a large photo of a young child clutching an American flag and peeking over the shoulder of the man in uniform who is holding him. The text to the left of the photo reads:

In 5 years…

_____________

4,000 killed

30,000 wounded

$1 trillion spent

_____________

It’s time to end

the war and

take care of

our veterans…

The top line of that text is in red–the rest is in large black type.

Page 2 of the mailer features a large photo of Boswell, with this text in large type:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

is working to:

Help our veterans.

End the war.

Page three has two smaller photos on the right side; one of Boswell speaking at a press conference, the other showing him talking with two veterans. The text on the left side of the page reads:

Standing Up to George Bush

Congressman Boswell voted five times to create a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. In five years of war, 4,000 soldiers have lost their lives and 30,000 have been wounded. A trillion dollars has been spent causing incalculable damage to our economy and creating an historic national debt for our children and our grandchildren. Leonard Boswell is working to end the war that George Bush started.

Standing Up for Our Veterans

A 20-year veteran who understands the true cost of war, Leonard Boswell has worked tirelessly on behalf of our veterans. He voted for the largest VA funding increase in history and fought to improve health care access for our wounded soldiers. He wrote a bill to provide better mental health care for our men and women in uniform and is working to bring the troops home every day. He authored and passed the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Ac.

Leonard Boswell is Taking on

George Bush for the Changes We Need

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The last page has a small photo of Boswell talking with a man and a woman, and a small photo of him with his wife Dody. Across the top in large print, it reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

Working to End the War and Help Our Veterans

In smaller type on the right-hand side are the following bullet points:

A 20-year veteran – served two tours in Vietnam

Voted five times for a timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq *

Voted for the largest VA funding increase in history

Fighting to improve health care access for wounded soldiers

Working to provide better mental health care for our veterans

Authored the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act

In very small print next to an asterisk below the photos are the numbers of the bills referred to in the bullet point on withdrawing troops from Iraq: H.R. 1591: RC 186, RC 265, RC 276; H.R. 2956: RC 624; H.R. 4156: RC 1108

At the bottom there’s contact information for the campaign and “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

Last month I posted about the “plain language” bill that Congressman Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) shepherded out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Des Moines Register’s Jane Norman reports that the House approved the bill on April 14 by a vote of 376-1:

“Some find it unusual that this plain language bill was introduced by someone who practiced law for 20 years before going to Congress,” [Braley] said. But he added that clear language has been a passion of his since 1983, when the Iowa Supreme Court adopted plain language requirements for jury instructions.

The bill would apply to many complex government documents that citizens now find tough to understand, including letters from Social Security, Medicare or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Braley told reporters that he worked closely with Rep. William Sali, an Idaho Republican, on the bill, and that Sali was the one who proposed amending it to make it clear that Internal Revenue Service documents will be included.

Norman wrote that a similar bill in the U.S. Senate has already been voted out of committee.

I should note that while Sali can be a real jerk at times, it’s good that he was able to work with Braley and help bring the GOP along on this sensible government reform.

Just got this e-mail from the Polk County Democrats:

From the Obama Campaign:

Dear Polk County Democrats,

The presidential season is still upon us and it has been fabulous to have watched the campaigns evolve in Iowa and continue to battle their way through the rest of the country.

As we all know, regardless of who the nominee is, we have work to do together as Democrats to elect a Democratic President to the White House and keep our Congress controlled by the Democrats

In the spirit of unity, we wanted to make it clear that the Obama campaign is not promoting a candidate in any of the local, state or congressional campaigns. We reject any efforts that give that impression.

If you have any questions and want to reach our campaign, please don’t hesitate to send an email to iowa@barackobama.com and we will get back to you.

Some of you may have heard about an upcoming Obama rally on Saturday. The Nation for Change Rally is being organized SOLELY by a grassroots group of Iowa Obama supporters who are excited about Senator Obama and would like to spread his message. If you would like more information on the event (Saturday, April 19th at 2:30 pm at Capitol) please email Cheryl Fasano at angelswings51@hotmail.com.

Sincerely,

The Iowa Obama Campaign

Anyone know what this is about? I have not heard of any state, local or Congressional candidates trying to claim they have Obama’s backing.

I know that Ed Fallon is planning to be at that Obama rally on Saturday. Are they worried that the appearance will be construed as an endorsement of Fallon by Obama?

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell's campaign to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon's faults.

Boswell's staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I'M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon's stand against taking contributions from political action committees (PACs) while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I'M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon's salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

This post looks at the evidence on whether Fallon considered running for governor as an independent.

Follow me after the jump for more on Fallon, Boswell and PACs.

Ed Fallon sought to connect Leonard Boswell with unwelcome trends in Iowa agriculture during three campaign events on April 12. An accompanying press release from the challenger’s campaign noted:

Fallon served on the Iowa House Agriculture Committee for six years and believes that the rampant consolidation of the hog industry and the explosion of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are impacting family farming and rural community viability.

Fallon noted that in 1995, a bill (HF 519) changed Iowa law to enable a drastic shift in hog production from family farms to corporate giants such as Iowa Select, DeCoster, Murphy, and Premium Standard.    

Fallon said, “As it happens, the President of the Iowa Senate at that time was Leonard Boswell, my opponent in this race. While I worked with fellow House Democrats to block passage of HF 519, Leonard Boswell helped get it passed in the Senate. ”

Fallon says he [is] disappointed that the Democratic Legislature in Iowa has done nothing on this issue and would recommend a moratorium at the federal level.

It’s not the first time Fallon has emphasized the differences between himself and Boswell on agriculture policy. That Iowa bill passed in 1995 features prominently on the agriculture page of Fallon’s campaign website.

Fallon made the point again in an interview with Iowa Independent blogger Dien Judge last month.

Can Fallon, who represented an urban district in the Iowa House, persuade third-district voters that he is the better candidate on farm issues?

The agriculture page on Boswell’s campaign website reads:

“Iowa’s farmers are among our greatest assets and they deserve our support.”

Congressman Boswell grew up on a farm in rural Iowa and returned to Iowa to farm after his service in the military.  He successfully led his local farmer’s co-op through the farm crisis of the 1980s, when he served as its chair.  Today, Boswell is guided by the values and common sense he learned as a farmer.

In Congress, Boswell has been a friend to agriculture.  He is one of two Iowa Representatives to serve on the House Agriculture Committee and one of only 37 farmers in the entire Congress.  He voted in favor of the most recent Farm Bill, which makes historic investments in conservation, nutrition, fruit and vegetable production, and renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America’s farmers and ranchers.

During his tenure in Congress and on the Agriculture Committee, Boswell has fought for increased market transparency, expanding renewable energy production, increasing value-added agricultural products, keeping marginal land out of agricultural production, increased working lands conservation programs, and to keep a real safety net for our nation’s producers.

Speaking to Iowa Independent, Fallon suggested that Iowa needs to build more local food networks and diversity of crops produced:

“Before I got involved in politics I did some farming, but I messed up my back bad enough that wasn’t going to happen anymore. But to me, we need to create local markets for food products where we can help broaden the base of agriculture. I mean, we’re always going to be a leader. Iowa’s always going to be a leader in corn, soybean, hog and cattle production. But why can’t we also regain some of our status with fruits and vegetables and dairy? There are so many other areas. We can do anything here when it comes to agriculture; we can do it all.”

In the same interview, Fallon acknowledged that he has “a lot more to learn” about federal agricultural policy, since his “focus in agriculture has been on Iowa issues, as they related to the Legislature’s role.”

Boswell seized on that admission in his own interview with Dien Judge, which Iowa Independent published on April 11:

Ask Boswell about his primary race, and he’ll say he’s ready for the challenge. He’s proud of his record and isn’t shy about criticizing his opponent. “I’ve had some very good success with different areas of conservation and energy and alternative fuels, which is something I’ve been involved in for many, many years. And I’ll continue to be there,” said Boswell. He said Fallon is always “trying to think of something to be critical about,” when “by his own admission he knows very little, if anything, about agriculture.”

“But I do know about agriculture, and I’m hands-on. I was actually born in a farmhouse. I spent my years growing up farming, and then my friends and neighbors called me off to the Army and I went off for a period of time. And when I came back, I went right back in the same neighborhood and took the risks and made the investment to farm. We went through a farm crisis, not only running a farm operation of my own but also in leadership of my local cooperative. You know, I have that under my belt. And by comparison, he doesn’t have anything like that.”

Boswell said federal agriculture policy is of the utmost importance to Iowa’s 3rd District, and it’s important to have an experienced hand in the Congress. “I think folks will figure that out,” he said. “And so I’m just going to keep on trying to do the good job that I try to do. We’re not going to hit every ball, but we sure try. And overall, I feel good about what I’ve done. So I bring to the table a lot of things that he just has no ability to bring to the table.”

Boswell has occasionally cited his experience as a farmer to justify Congressional votes that have nothing to do with agriculture. For instance, when a participant in a telephone town-hall meeting asked Boswell to defend his vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill in 2005 (which most House Democrats opposed), Boswell replied:

“I am a survivor of the farm crisis, and saw folks that bankrupted when they really had the ability to pay back,” said Boswell, who owns a cattle farm in southern Iowa. “It seems to me like when we sign our name on the line and promise to pay, that we have a responsibility if we have the ability to pay.”

At the same time, more help and counseling are needed to assist consumers from falling too deeply into debt, Boswell said. He said he worked very hard to not fall into bankruptcy when he faced financial problems with his own farm operation.

Although I can’t find a link right now, I recall Boswell justifying his vote to permanently repeal the estate tax (another Republican-backed effort opposed by most House Democrats) by saying we need to protect family farms. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows in its discussion of estate tax “myths”,

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms and small businesses, there is in fact very little evidence that it has an outsize impact on these groups.  Indeed, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

My guess is that anyone in the third district who is satisfied with current federal policy on farm subsidies and other agricultural issues will support Boswell in the June 3 primary.

But bringing up the expansion of CAFOs in Iowa, and connecting that with the law Boswell supported in 1995, could help Fallon with Democrats who are concerned with environmental problems associated with CAFOs. They include city and suburban dwellers as well as some rural residents who have seen the quality of life in their communities decline. Fallon has been an outspoken proponent of “local control” over the siting of CAFOs (currently Iowa law does not grant counties any zoning authority over agricultural operations).

You can read the full text of the Fallon campaign’s April 12 press release on agricultural issues after the jump.

I received this press release from the Boswell campaign about another union endorsement:

April 12, 2008

Iowa Federation of Labor Endorses Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am very pleased and happy to receive the support of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,” said Congressman Boswell.  “They fight for better pay, better benefits, and better job security.  I will continue to stand up for workers and their families in any way I can.”

“Congressman Boswell had a 96 percent voting record in 2007, and has a lifetime voting record of 85 percent,” said Ken Sagar, President of Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “We look forward to working with the Congressman on labor issues in the future.”

The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO is made up of more than 400 local unions and 50 councils representing over 55,000 members.

It will be interesting to see whether any unions advertise on Boswell’s behalf this spring.

I would think the main benefit of these endorsements would be additional phone-bankers and foot-soldiers to GOTV for a June primary.

My husband and I both got direct-mail pieces from Congressman Leonard Boswell today.

I noticed that Boswell for Congress paid for this one, as opposed to the last three campaign-style mailers, which American taxpayers funded.

The front shows a large color photo of Boswell, with a smaller black-and-white photo of George W. Bush in the upper left corner. The text reads:

While Bush squandered a strong economy…

Leonard Boswell has been a

CHAMPION for Iowa’s middle class

When you open the mailer, page 2 consists of a large photo of Boswell standing next to a worker. The text at the bottom reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

DELIVERS for the middle class

Page three has three photos of Boswell talking with small groups of men and women. The text on the rest of the page reads:

Leonard Boswell is working to end the Bush recession

-Voted to increase the minimum wage and to support small business

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Working to balance the budget and provide tax relief to Iowa’s working families

-Creating thousands of future jobs for Iowans with new ethanol and renewable fuel standards

Leonard Boswell

Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need

The back page has a photo of Boswell with his wife Dody. The text reads:

Congressman Boswell is working for Iowa’s new economy

-Making Iowa a leader in he green jobs revolution

-Creating high paying, new energy jobs

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Increasing the minimum wage

-Providing tax relief to Iowa’s working families

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The bottom has contact information for the campaign as well as the notice, “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon’s salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

Today I’m covering the Boswell campaign’s claim that Fallon considered running for governor as an independent after losing the 2006 primary to Chet Culver. Join me after the jump for more.

State Senator Dick Dearden on Wednesday announced plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over Ed Fallon’s alleged use of the I’M for Iowa movement to promote his Congressional campaign:

Dearden, also a Democrat, alleged that Fallon’s group violated federal campaign law by promoting his campaign for Congress without disclosing its source of money.

Dearden supports U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, the Democrat Fallon is challenging in Iowa’s 3rd District primary on June 3.

[…]

Boswell and his campaign aides have raised questions about the relationship between I’M for Iowa and Fallon’s campaign for Congress, but have not formally alleged wrongdoing. Dearden said he took the action without consulting Boswell or his campaign.

“He collects money and he’s using the Web site – undisclosed money – to further his campaign,” Dearden, of Des Moines, told reporters at a Capitol press conference.

Dearden was referring to at least three e-mail messages sent from I’M for Iowa to the group’s supporters, in which Fallon’s candidacy was mentioned. Federal campaign law forbids corporate money from being spent in a campaign for federal office. Dearden’s argument is that the e-mail constitutes promoting Fallon’s campaign by a group that is not required to disclose its source of money.

Since the FEC does not currently have enough members to take official action, this complaint will almost certainly not be resolved in time for the June 3 primary. By filing the complaint, however, Dearden is assisting the Boswell campaign’s efforts to keep the media narrative about Fallon’s alleged ethical problems.

Fallon issued a press release trying to shift the focus back to his differences with Boswell over the issues:

Des Moines, March 9, 4:00 pm CDT – “I live simply.  I’ve always been a voice for ethics in government, and I have never taken a penny from a PAC or lobbyist.  Clearly, Boswell’s people are trying to discredit me on my strengths instead of discussing the real challenges facing America.  Voters deserve better than this.  I welcome the FEC’s investigation and I am eager for a debate with Congressman Boswell on the important issues, including campaign finance reform.”

Meanwhile, Fallon and the Boswell campaign sparred over the incumbent’s voting record on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

The Boswell campaign points to five votes in support of a timetable for ending combat in Iraq. I think that the issue, though, is whether Boswell (like many Congressional Democrats), voted for some bills that called for bringing troops home by X date, yet were willing to support Iraq War supplemental funding bills that did not contain timetables for withdrawal.

It’s great to be on record calling for an end to combat operations in Iraq, but as long as Congress continues to sign blank checks to fund Bush’s war, the policy won’t change.

Leonard Boswell continues to line up union endorsements in his re-election campaign against Ed Fallon. This came today from the Boswell press office:

Des Moines Firefighters Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Des Moines Association of Professional Firefighters (IAFF 4) announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  They cited Boswell’s support of the FIRE Act grant program, which has provided funding to local, county and state agencies to provide fire and rescue protection for Iowans.  Boswell has also supported the SAFER Act program, which helps local fire departments recruit and hire both full-time and volunteer firefighters.  The Windsor Heights fire department has recently benefitted from this program.

“I’m grateful for the support of career firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I am committed to providing all I can to ensure our first responders are appropriately equipped to respond to any type of emergency, including terrorism.  Our firefighters are the first to arrive on the scene of these emergencies and I will continue to work toward enabling them to do the job.”

“We count on Congressman Boswell as a knowledgeable and skilled leader.  He continues to provide analysis of vital intelligence information that keeps America prepared to respond to emergencies and threats.  Firefighters rely upon and deeply trust Leonard Boswell,” said John TeKippe, President of IAFF 4.

IAFF, Local 4 represents approximately 300 firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale.

This is part of a series I’m writing about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

Today I will focus on the controversy surrounding the salary Fallon’s gubernatorial campaign paid him following his loss in the June 2006 primary.

Campaigns routinely pay staffers for weeks or months after the race is over. Just last week I spoke to someone who is still working at John Edwards’ headquarters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, more than two months after Edwards suspended his presidential campaign.

It is more unusual for the candidate to be paid for doing campaign work after the election. No one disputes that Fallon received $13,750 from his gubernatorial campaign between June and November of 2006. The payments are allowed under Iowa law “as long as the candidate is doing work related to the campaign.”

Before drawing any salary from unspent campaign funds, Fallon checked with Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. According to Fallon, Smithson “assured me that I, along with other staff, could be paid to work on campaign related tasks.” What were those tasks?

Though the campaign was over, there was still plenty of work to do with data entry, file drawers, computer files, and office equipment.  I also wanted to make sure the key issues in my campaign continued to receive attention through the general election.  So, three staff and I stayed on part-time.

Now that this has become an issue in the Boswell-Fallon race, Iowa House representative Rick Olson is leading a charge to ban politicians from taking salaries from campaign funds:

Rep. Rick Olson, a Des Moines Democrat, criticized candidates taking salaries from campaign money. In remarks on the floor of the Iowa House today, he vowed to work with Democratic leaders to introduce legislation known as the “Ed Fallon loophole” to make the payments illegal.

“I find that unbelievable,” Olson said. “If that’s what the law is in the state, that we can pay ourselves salaries after we’ve been defeated. I think that’s a hoax and a sham.”

Smithson declined to comment on the specific situation when contacted by the Des Moines Register, but said that legislators should

take a broader look at the issue. Lawmakers should question if candidates – at any stage during or after their elections – should be able to pay themselves for running for public office, Smithson said.

The Iowa legislature has two “funnel” deadlines for bills, and both have passed this session. In theory, that means that new bills, which have not already been approved by at least one committee, may not be introduced until the 2009 legislative session.

However, the leadership in the Democratic-controlled Iowa House and Senate may try to get Olson’s proposal through this month:

Democratic leaders in the Iowa House and Senate agreed Tuesday to work on a proposal that would make it illegal for political candidates to pay themselves a salary out of campaign contributions.

Brian Meyer, an assistant for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, said Tuesday that the Democratic leader, along with Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, have agreed to draft legislation to halt such payments. The proposal could be introduced as soon as Thursday, Meyer said.

A deadline has passed for most lawmakers to sponsor new legislation, but bills sponsored by legislative leaders can be introduced at any time and remain eligible for debate.

If legislators push this bill through, I will have written my last check to the House and Senate Democratic leadership funds. It is totally inappropriate to make the Iowa legislature an arm of Leonard Boswell’s re-election campaign.

It is also absurd to treat the so-called “Fallon loophole” as a five-alarm fire when Iowa has no limits on the size of contributions candidates for the legislature or statewide office may accept. That’s right, a wealthy person can write a check of any size to any state legislator’s campaign.

Also, legislative leaders refuse to allow the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act (which would create a voluntary public-financing system similar to those used in Maine and Arizona) to move forward.

Fallon responded to this legislative effort in his campaign website blog on April 2. Among other things, he claims lawmakers are getting back at him because his political advocacy organization, I’M for Iowa, has been highly critical of the Democratic leadership in the legislature. He also notes that statehouse Democrats are content to ignore far more serious loopholes in our campaign finance rules.

I’ve put the full text of that blog post after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

The real loophole that needs closing is the one that allows legislative leaders to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs and lobbyists, funnel it to special funds, and then ship it to targeted candidates.  Successful candidates are then reminded by leaders that they won because of the money funneled into their campaigns.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board on April 6 criticized the proposed legislation on different grounds:

A thistle to Democratic legislators who would bar candidates from drawing a salary from campaign donors. This bill (aimed at Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell) is an Incumbent Protection Act. Challengers who give up day jobs to run for office must fend for themselves or be independently wealthy. Meanwhile, the taxpayers support or subsidize incumbents. If contributors want to spend their own money for the care and feeding of a candidate, it is no business of the Iowa Legislature.

Incidentally, Fallon gave up two paying jobs in order to run for governor: his seat in the Iowa House (in a safe Democratic district), and his part-time position as executive director of the non-profit organization 1000 Friends of Iowa (a group I am involved with).

To my mind, the controversy over Fallon’s salary in 2006 is just another facet of Boswell’s effort to direct third district voters’ attention toward anything but how the incumbent has voted during his six terms in Congress.

The Boswell campaign put out this press release today:

CONTACT: Betsy Shelton

                                                                                            515-238-3356

Congressman Leonard Boswell Receives Endorsement of Building Trades Council

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the endorsement of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council today.  Congressman Boswell continues to fight for issues important to the Building Trades, including building and maintaining infrastructure, and focusing on issues relating to working families.

“I am honored to receive the support of the Building Trades,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families.”

“As a member of the United States Congress, Leonard Boswell has consistently fought for issues important to the working families of Iowa.  The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council is proud to endorse Congressman Boswell because we know his re-election will send a strong advocate for working Iowans back to Washington,” said Bill Gerhard, State Building Trades president.

The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council has approximately 35,000 members in Iowa.  The Council represents 15 building trades unions engaged in the construction industry.

It’s not clear from the release how many of those 35,000 members live in the third district.

This endorsement isn’t surprising, in that unions typically back incumbents, and Boswell has gotten all of the trade union endorsements so far in this race.

Additionally, though Fallon was a strong and consistent supporter of organized labor in the Iowa legislature, he has been outspoken against certain new road projects in the state. The Building Trades Council presumably supports all new road projects.

To cite one example that applies to residents of the third district, supporters of a proposed four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County are counting on Boswell, who serves on the House Transportation Committee, to secure substantial federal funding. Fallon opposes building this road, which would be a poor use of transportation funding and would be environmentally harmful as well.

I have seen research showing that maintaining existing infrastructure supports more jobs than building new roads, but I can’t find the link right now. If I can find it tonight, I will add it to this post.

On Thursday I wrote about how Ed Fallon’s I’M for Iowa movement has become an issue in the campaign for the Democratic nomination in the third Congressional district.

I am returning to the topic to address some points Chase Martyn raised in an article for Iowa Independent, “FEC disputes Fallon campaign statement,” and in the comment thread below that article. I agree with Chase on a couple of specifics, but disagree with the larger point he is making.

My post included the text of an April 2 press release from Fallon’s campaign titled, “FEC Confirms Boswell’s Allegations Baseless Against Fallon.” It asserted that the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.”

An FEC spokesperson told Iowa Independent, “No Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.”

Reading Fallon’s press release, it appears that a campaign official reviewed the relevant portions of the rules with someone from the FEC in order to confirm the content and/or intent of those rules. But the release should not have claimed the FEC confirmed the Fallon campaign’s position regarding I’M for Iowa.

I have to agree with Chase that this kind of “amateur mistake” is not going to cut it. Fallon’s press shop needs to have an extra copy editor and tighter supervision to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Chase is troubled by the fact that I’M for Iowa is not legally obliged to disclose its donors:

What if Leonard Boswell sent out an email from his personal email account soliciting donations to his personal bank account in exchange for intangible political advocacy services?

Don’t you think Ed Fallon would be the first in line to criticize him for inviting corruption?  Even if, as Fallon says (and I believe him), he respects Boswell and doesn’t think he’s an evil or dishonest man, Boswell’s actions would introduce too many ethical questions to allow him to effectively represent us in Congress.

I agree that if Fallon were elected to Congress, it would be inappropriate for him to continue to raise money for outside political advocacy by I’M for Iowa. In that event, it would be best to shut down I’M for Iowa or transfer it to new ownership outside Fallon’s household, so as not to create any opportunities for (or even the appearance of) corruption.

Chase’s larger point seems to be that Fallon should have made I’M for Iowa a 501(c)4 organization rather than a general partnership.

I don’t know the details about what it takes to set up a 501(c)4 compared to a business like I’M for Iowa. I know from friends who are in the small business world that it gets complicated when you are trying to decide whether to establish a general partnership, an S-corp, a limited liability corporation, etc.  Each variant has pros and cons.

I am involved in several non-profit organizations, and it is frustrating not to be able to take a position on certain issues because of limitations related to 501(c)3 status. While 501(c)4 organizations can undertake political advocacy, the reality is that some controversial issues get overlooked by 501(c)4s as well.

So I see a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa, although as I wrote in my previous post, I have never contributed to I’M for Iowa and haven’t followed its work closely. If people are willing to contribute money to support Fallon’s political advocacy related to CAFOs, eminent domain, coal-fired power plants and so on, I have no problem with that.

It’s not as if I’M for Iowa is hiding what issues it works on.

Chase is concerned that Fallon could evade contribution caps for Congressional candidates by taking unlimited large donations for I’M for Iowa, paying himself a large salary through I’M for Iowa, and then turning around and writing large checks to his own Congressional campaign.

Fallon lives simply and has disclosed his modest income, so it would be a huge red flag if he started writing big checks to his Congressional campaign (which we would learn about from campaign disclosure documents).

Meanwhile, Boswell has already had American taxpayers write large checks to his campaign, in effect, by using his franking privilege to send out three glossy direct-mail pieces that had the look and feel of campaign literature. Those were very different from the typical constituent letter you get from Boswell’s office on regular paper in a regular envelope.

The Des Moines Register has given Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out material that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.” I have seen no estimate of how much these mailings cost taxpayers. Will Boswell’s office disclose those numbers?

Chase notes in a comment that

The issue of Boswell receiving corporate PAC money might be of concern to many, but we are only able to complain about it because he is forced to disclose it.

So now I am supposed to be more worried about hypothetical scenarios related to potential I’M for Iowa donations than I am about real, existing sources of Boswell’s campaign funds.

I know from experience that Boswell will often not represent my views on matters of great importance to me. I know that for years I have been getting numerous action alerts from progressive groups urging me to contact Boswell on this or that bill.

Invariably, they are just trying to get Boswell to take the mainstream, majority Democatic position for or against whatever bill is the issue.

Matthew Grimm recently noted in a piece for the Down with Tyranny! blog:

A more sophisticated rating [of Boswell’s voting record] at Progressive Punch’s When The Chips Are Down scale shows that when substantive matters with sharp partisan divides are voted on, Boswell is frequently ready to rubber stamp much of the Bush corporate agenda.

Here is a link to Progressive Punch’s scorecard for all House members. Boswell ranks 188th in terms of his support for progressive stands “when the chips are down.”

I don’t know why Boswell has voted the way he has. I don’t know if it has any relationship to campaign contributions from corporate PACs that promote different policies from the ones I favor. Ultimately, his reason for not consistently representing the Democratic Party’s views and values is irrelevant to me.

I want to worry less about whether my member of Congress will vote with the Democratic majority consistently, particularly if we end up with another four years of a Republican president.

I want to address one more point related to I’M for Iowa. While not claiming that Fallon has broken any laws, the Boswell campaign is trying to undermine the legitimacy of political advocacy work as opposed to a “real job.”

Boswell spokesman Mark Daley has suggested there is something illegitimate about I’M for Iowa:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

I notice a similar theme running through the comments by some Boswell supporters on various blogs: Fallon has never had a “real job.” I object to the idea that political advocacy and community organizing are not real jobs. Furthermore, I am active with 1000 Friends of Iowa, for which Fallon served as executive director for a number of years. Just because it’s in the non-profit sector doesn’t mean it’s not a job.

If Fallon decided to pursue political advocacy work full-time after the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, and people were willing to contribute money to I’M for Iowa, why is that less legitimate than getting people to invest in a different kind of business?

To me this looks like a smokescreen by the Boswell campaign to raise doubts about Fallon.

Why doesn’t Boswell want this campaign to be about his voting record and what he has done as representative for the third district?  

Since launching my exploratory committee in January of 2007, I've encountered a wide variety of people both online and in person. My exploratory committee lasted 11 months, until I turned it over to an official campaign on Veterans’ Day on the 11th of November Since the official launch, I have spent months on the road collecting signatures for ballot access and for speaking engagements. This entire experience has exposed me to people and places in Iowa that most people will never access. Frozen Wal-Mart parking lots in Mason City, smoke-filled bars in Eagle Grove, and Clint Eastwood-made-famous-cafes in Winterset.

As I’ve noted recently, the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district has taken a strange turn, whereby the incumbent seems to be trying to make the race primarily about the challenger’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

I’ve been too busy in non-blog life to write up the day to day sparring following a recent e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign, which attacked Ed Fallon on several fronts.

The criticism of Fallon by Boswell’s surrogates and supporters has focused on four issues in particular:

1. alleged ethical questions related to Fallon’s work for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

I will cover each of those issues in a separate diary, because I don’t have time to write about all of them at once. Today, I will address the allegations related to I’M for Iowa.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent published a piece on March 20 called “Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions.” Martyn raised questions about I’M for Iowa’s ability to collect unlimited donations without disclosing the sources:

Although I’M For Iowa participates in political advocacy and relies on contributions to stay afloat, its financial status does not fit the typical mold for this type of organization. Rather than registering it as a nonprofit organization with the Internal Revenue Service under sections 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 527, Fallon runs the organization as a for-profit general partnership, making its tax status no different from most home businesses. He and his current campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, co-own the business.

But there is a difference between I’M For Iowa and most typical businesses: Rather than sell products and services to customers, it accepts donations for its political advocacy work. While the donations are not tax-deductible, the business can accept unlimited amounts of money. And because of its tax status, it is not required to disclose information about its sources of funding.

Martyn also noted that two e-mails sent to I’M for Iowa’s distribution list appeared to have promoted Fallon’s Congressional campaign:

On Feb. 29 an e-mail Fallon wrote to his I’M For Iowa group invited readers to visit his campaign Web site and participate in campaign activities to coincide with his 50th birthday. And on Jan. 12 he sent an I’M For Iowa e-mail announcing his candidacy for Congress and providing a lengthy critique of his primary opponent’s voting record.

The result is a complicated question involving the nuances of campaign finance law. Can an unincorporated business accept unlimited contributions without the requirement to disclose its contributors and then use contributed funds to promote a congressional campaign?

Martyn suggested that even if no laws were broken, the questions could hurt Fallon’s image, since he has been a strong advocate of clean-elections laws (such as the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns).

The Des Moines Register didn’t follow up on the Iowa Independent story until after the Boswell campaign drew attention to it a week later. Thomas Beaumont examined various questions related to I’M for Iowa in the Register on March 29:

The organization is a trade name registered with the Polk County recorder. Small businesses such as lawn care services and other sole proprietorships register this way.

However, some other advocacy organizations, such as the 15-year-old, Des Moines-based State Public Policy Group, is also registered the same way as Fallon’s group.

I’M for Iowa is not a corporation, over which the Iowa secretary of state has regulatory authority.

Fallon’s group does not have to report its sources of money or what kind of business it is. But it receives no money from corporations, said Lynn Heuss, Fallon’s partner in the organization.

It runs on contributions from individuals who support its agenda, which includes limiting large livestock confinements, curbing global warming, promoting campaign finance reform and preventing abuse of eminent domain.

It seems clear that there is no legal barrier to using the I’M for Iowa e-mail list to promote Fallon’s Congressional campaign.

Martyn wrote in Iowa Independent:

A representative of the Federal Elections Commission would not comment on any matters that regulators may have to rule on, but FEC regulations do not seem to explicitly prohibit coordination between a campaign and an unincorporated business entity owned by a candidate.

Beaumont’s March 29 article for the Register notes that

Campaign finance law bars corporate contributions from federal races. However, the law specifies corporations and limited liability companies, which Fallon’s group is not.

According to a press release from Fallon’s campaign on April 2, the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.” The full text of that release is after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

Fallon campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, provided the rules the campaign reviewed with the FEC Information Officer: From the FEC Candidate Guide, Chapter 4, Section 10, “Partnerships are permitted to make contributions according to special rules. 110.1(e) and (k)(1). For further details, see Appendix B.”

In addition, Chapter 4, Section 12 of the FEC Candidate’s Guide says, “When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. 110.10; AOs 1991-9, 1990-9, 1985-33 and 1985-60. They must, however, be reported (as discussed below).” And a little further down under “Definition of a Candidate’s “Personal Funds” it says, “The personal funds of a candidate include: Assets which the candidate has a legal right of access to or control over, and which he or she has legal title to or an equitable interest in, at the time of candidacy; income from employment; ….”

Heuss clarified the only contribution the business has made is sending out two email messages, which constitute an in-kind donation, and is not in violation of FEC regulation.

(UPDATE: Chase Martyn reported on April 3 that the FEC denied making “any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign”. Martyn added that Iowa Independent had merely questioned the ethics of how I’M for Iowa was used and not alleged that any laws were broken.)

If no laws were broken, what is the problem? The Boswell campaign has tried to suggest that there is something underhanded about I’M for Iowa. From the Register’s March 29 article:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

Although I’ve donated to Fallon’s gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns, I have never contributed money to I’M for Iowa. As a result, I haven’t followed the organization’s work very closely.

But if individuals want to give money to help Fallon advocate for clean elections, or organize opposition to coal-fired power plants and CAFOs, what is the problem?  

Non-profit organizations are unable or unwilling to take a position on some kinds of political disputes, so there is a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa.

Does the Boswell campaign mean to suggest that advocacy work is not a real job? That seems strange. Barack Obama’s supporters and television commercials have praised that candidate for working as a community organizer after finishing law school.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised the Boswell campaign wants to go down this road, since Boswell’s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate PACs in 2007 alone. I’m supposed to be concerned about the hidden agenda of individuals who have contributed to I’M for Iowa?

Asked to comment in the Register article of March 29, Fallon characterized the allegations as typical establishment politics:

“The political establishment attacks a candidate on his strength,” Fallon said. “My strength is my commitment to issues. They are looking for ways to discredit me.”

Fallon’s campaign addressed the controversy in more detail in statements released on March 31 and April 2. The full text of those press releases are after the jump.

I just got a robo-call from Governor Chet Culver inviting me to a fundraiser that he and Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge are hosting for Congressman Leonard Boswell this Saturday, April 5.

The event starts at 6:30 pm at the Hotel Fort Des Moines (10th and Walnut in Des Moines). The Too Many Strings Band will perform.

I received an invitation to this event in the mail two or three weeks ago. It looks like they are expecting contributions of at least $25 to Boswell for Congress, with hosts, sponsors and patrons donating at higher levels.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers attend this fundraiser, please put up a diary afterwards to let us know how it went, how big the crowd was, and anything interesting the speakers may have said.

I expect they will raise quite a lot of money for Boswell’s campaign this Saturday.

I didn’t see this last week, because despite my requests, the Boswell campaign is still not sending their press releases to me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). But on Friday the United Auto Workers came out for Boswell in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Via Iowa True Blue, here is the release from the campaign:

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the support of the Iowa United Auto Workers State Community Action League (CAP) today.  “I’m honored and proud to have earned the support of the UAW,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families, making college more affordable, creating jobs that can’t be outsourced and bringing health care to every American.”

“Leonard Boswell stood by our side time and time again in pushing for CAFE standards that help the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and produce manufacturing jobs across our country,” said Dennis Walker, President of the Iowa UAW State CAP.  “He fought to stop the sale of Maytag when our jobs were attacked, and has worked tirelessly to bring jobs back to the Newton area.”

The UAW has approximately 30,000 active and retired members in Iowa.

It’s not clear how many UAW members in Iowa live in the third district. There used to be a sizable number in Jasper County, but that was before Maytag closed.

So far Boswell has swept the union endorsements, including the Service Employees International Union, despite Ed Fallon’s rock-solid voting record on labor. It’s extremely rare for unions to back a challenger in a primary.

How many foot soldiers will these unions provide for Boswell this spring? I think he will need the help to match the volunteers organized by the Fallon campaign.

Typically, a challenger needs to run a somewhat negative campaign in order to convince voters to reject the incumbent. The incumbent normally is content to ignore the challenger and run on his or her record of service.

In Iowa’s third Congressional district, a strange role reversal is underway, in which Ed Fallon is calling on Leonard Boswell’s campaign to “stop the negative attacks.”

Last week I posted the text of an e-mail from Boswell, which charged that Fallon is “no Democrat” and “has never acted in the best interest of our party.”

On March 24, Fallon issued a press release and a letter to his supporters responding to the attacks from the Boswell camp. It once again addresses Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000, and also responds to claims that Fallon’s work for I’M for Iowa has run afoul of ethical or campaign finance rules.

I am working on another post about the financing of the Boswell and Fallon campaigns, and will write more about allegations surrounding Fallon and I’M for Iowa in the near future.

For now, I will note that the Boswell campaign probably would not have stepped up the attacks on Fallon in March if their internal polling and voter contacts were encouraging. (I got a call from a field organizer for Boswell during the first week of March, and my husband got a call from an organizer for Boswell this past week.)

An incumbent who is not worried doesn’t go after a challenger this way two months before the primary.

When the first public poll of this race is released, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fallon within striking distance of Boswell.

The full text of Fallon’s press release of March 24 is after the jump.

Cross-posted around the blogosphere yesterday. I am posting here because a few of the links have not appeared in previous posts at Bleeding Heartland. -desmoinesdem

Welcome to the latest diary in my series on the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Ed Fallon is challenging Leonard Boswell, who was first elected to this seat in 1996.

Today, I consider who would represent this district more effectively in Congress.

Here are links to my previous diaries on this campaign:

the introductory diary, with biographical information on Boswell and Fallon

The cases for Fallon and Boswell

Boswell and Fallon pick up the pace

Will Democrats vote on the issues?

Freshman representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) has already gotten a bill out of committee in the U.S. House of Representatives:

Braley’s bill mandating “plain language” in government documents was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee just before the House adjourned for its spring recess.

Braley wants the government to write documents in “plain language” rather than bureaucratese. Next, there will be consideration on the House floor.

It sounds like a good idea. I don’t know how a law like this would be enforced, but maybe there are precedents at the state level I haven’t heard about. Anyone know the answer?

The topic of earmarks is one that has been frquently chatted about on many of the Republican blog posts. I hear a lot of Democrat so and so did this and Liberal So and So did that, so I thought I should share a few facts about Pork Barrel Spending and our Representatives here in Iowa.

Fact 1: The leader among senators in earmarks?

Republican Thad Cochran Mississippi, with $837,000,000+!!!!!!

Fact: 2: The leader among Senators in Iowa?

Republican Chuck Grassley with  $323,000,000+!!!

 Fact 3: The Leader among Iowa congressmen?

Republican Tom Latham with $69,000,000+!!!

Fact 4: Notable Legislatures that have less ear marks than Latham's 63

Democratic Sen. Obama 55

Democratic Sen. Feingold 0

Democratic Sen. McCaskill 0

Democratic Rep. Boswell (IA) 26

Democratic Rep. Braley (IA) 27

Democratic Rep. Loebsack (IA) 25

Here is to hoping Latham's hypocrasy doesnt go unnoticed.

Happy Easter!

I received an e-mail from Kurt Meyer’s campaign in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and it mentioned that incumbent Tom Latham is one of the Republicans being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I hadn’t realized that the DCCC planned to put resources into flipping that seat. It will be an uphill battle, but if the climate is right for Democratic candidates nationwide and in Iowa, it should be within reach.

I am staying out of the primary battle in IA-04, but I plan to donate $100 to the campaign of the winner of that primary. I would love to see that district turn blue.

While digging around on the DCCC’s website for more information, I noticed that they have also named Leonard Boswell as one of 29 “frontline Democrats.” I do not know whether that means the DCCC will put resources into the primary race in IA-03.

Here is the ActBlue page the DCCC set up for all of its “frontline Democrats”:

http://www.actblue.com/page/fr…

Here is a map you can use to find all of the districts the DCCC is targeting this year, either for pickups or defense:

http://dccc.org/page/content/r…

UPDATE: brownsox analyzes the list at Daily Kos and says the DCCC is targeting 59 Republican-held seats for pickups and 31 Democratic seats for defense:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

I just got an e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign. It confirms my belief that they are very worried about Ed Fallon’s primary challenge.

Most of the e-mail contains negative information about Fallon, including a lead paragraph citing Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000 and a closing paragraph stating flatly, “Ed Fallon is no Democrat.”

Positive information about Boswell makes up a small portion of the message, mostly near the bottom. It mentions that Knowlegis has ranked him the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House, making him “more powerful than nearly 70 percent of other Members of Congress.”

It also cites Boswell’s endorsements from AFSCME, SEIU, the Des Moines Police Association, Des Moines Association of Professional Fire Fighters, and UAW, as well as his support from Senator Tom Harkin, Governor Chet Culver, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, Congressman Bruce Braley and Congressman Dave Loebsack.

The message mentions Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party twice.

I would like the incumbent to address his tendency of voting with the majority of House Republicans, and contrary to the majority of House Democrats, on issues such as:

the 2005 bankruptcy bill

the 2005 energy bill

permanent repeal of the estate tax

the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping

weakening the right of habeas corpus

I would also like to know why I continually get action alerts from environmental groups asking me to contact Boswell about this or that bill, when Braley and Loebsack seem to know instinctively what position to take on these bills without getting a barrage of phone calls from constituents.

Boswell’s e-mail also features an article by Chase Martyn for Iowa Independent: Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions (that link works, although the link in Boswell’s e-mail was broken). I will write more about that piece in a forthcoming post about the financing of the Boswell and Fallon campaigns.

The full text of the Boswell campaign’s e-mail is after the jump.

On the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee (STAR*PAC) endorsed Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

From a Fallon campaign press release:

“STAR*PAC believes that Ed Fallon understands the challenges we face in the 21st century and is the best-equipped candidate to represent the Third District in the difficult times ahead.”

Additionally, they stated, “we remain concerned that Rep. Boswell has too often supported the Administration’s war policy by voting to authorize the war, and voting to continue funding without timelines for troop withdrawal.”

Fallon’s campaign will not receive any monetary donation from STAR*PAC, in keeping with his policy of not accepting funds from PACs.

The full release is after the jump.