So, Kyle responded to my post below about the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board’s decision to ‘investigate’ the allegations against Jim Nussle and rightly notes:
“People who have focused on politics for longer than I have often fall into this hole. This isn’t “doing something,” this is “investigating.” This is the IECDB saying “I’ll look.” When they do something, then I’ll take back what I said.”
The perception of toothlessness will stick around until they can legitimately do something as a punishment or reprimand. While there is nothing potentially criminal about Nussle’s acts, you’d still think a nice stiff punishment would come about should he be found to have violated state campaign laws.
However, today’s Register reports that the possible penalties against Nussle will essentially mount to nothing of significance:
“Smithson said he would collect the information and present it to the board by June. A finding that the campaign violated campaign rules could bring any of a range of responses, from a letter of reprimand to a $2,000 fine. Nussle is unopposed in the June 6 primary.”
Honestly, what the fuck is going on here? First of all, how the hell is it going to take two months — about 40 business days — to check Nussle’s federal finance records and his state reports. Is Smithson going to be doing the work himself while the IECDB staffers are on a two-month vacation? And secondly, I know I shouldn’t expect a stiff penalty, but what the fuck is a $2k fine to a guy who raised over $2 million just last year? I understand that the perception of being unethical and, perhaps, the image of breaking the rules and being a cheater might leave a negative impact on your campaign and get you some negative press. The image that could come from a $2k fine — and the resulting IDP spinning because of all the GOP ethics lapses in recent history — would be a great boost to Democratic efforts in the state, but its still a marginal punishment at best.
In other news of IECDB punishments and lack of teeth, they sent two letters to two former Des Moines school board candidates for their infractions, which were, in my eyes at least, pretty minimal.
I think my biggest point is that if we’re going to have this board to keep politicians and their campaigns honest, shouldn’t they have powers of punishment or reprimand far more significant than letters or $2k fines? I always thought that the IECDB was just being perceived as being thoothless because people weren’t giving them a chance. I think I might’ve been wrong. Maybe I’m just being naive, but I think there’s a place for stiffer penalties for purposely or accidently screwing over the electorate. Any ideas?
Actually, only one of them was a school board candidate. The other is just a gadfly.
I say get rid of campaign rules and just make simple transparency the rule of the day. I’d much rather dissect a candidates true funding sources via the web than whiff after unpunished, or lightly punished, rumors of rulebreaking.
Free speech, you know. The fewer hoops Nussle (or anyone else) has to jump through to “properly campaign” the less cover he has for taking $10,000 checks from the Sheep Rapists of America lobby.
All these campaign “rules” do for incumbents is give them secret doors in which to stash their weed.
Dammit, Smithson does a decent job . . . so lay off . . . and concentrate on the stuff at the end of the post. The IECDB has little staff or authority to penalize significantly. The Iowa Legislature is responsible for that, not the IECDB. Me thinks it might be a good idea to learn something about the mechanics of government before spouting off.
So great, the IECDB should just bloat itself up in order to become a more efficient bureaucracy? I agree the IECDB does the best it can, but they are given an impossible mission: to equalize campaigns in thought, word and deed.
My solution is simple - by law, every candidate must disclose, in simple format, the writer of the check and his/her interests. No penalties, no “illegal” contributions, no caps, no limits. Let the money come. And let us see it. Slap the data on a searchable website, so every voter can find out for himself the sources of a candidates income. Small farmers can see when a “pro-farm” candidate is getting all his dough from Monsanto. Neighborhood activists can see when their candidate is getting most of his campaign paid for with out-of-state, corporate money. And so on and so on.
If we are able to see clearly what a candidates interests are, we are able to guess where his votes may fall. Campaign rules are designed by campaign winners to ensure, not truth, or clarity, or openness, but more victories.
Bottom line.
Hey Dan, we’re not that stupid! We heard you the first time.