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?
Continue Reading...
