You Get What You Pay For
- Monday, July 13, 2009, 8:51
- Krusty Konservative
- 766 views
- 10 comments
This month, Iowa PACs and political parties will have to disclose their contributions and expenditures for the first half of the year. In the past, I have not paid much attention to this report. Instead I focused on the candidate filings. This year however, I wanted to see what some of these PACs are up to.
The reports are due at the end of the week, but some are already in. One group in particular caught my attention, Master Builders of Iowa. MBI’s purpose is to promote a business environment favorable to the construction industry here in Iowa.
MBI raised $40,465.00 and spent $44,050.00 since the beginning of the year. Before the legislative session began, MBI made 21 contributions to candidates from both sides of the political aisle. Those contributions ranged from $250 to $1500. This sort of donor activity is typical of an organization like MBI.
It is after the legislative session concluded that MBI made some interesting contributions. Just so all know, PACs are not allowed to contribute to legislators or the governor during the legislative session or in the 30 days following. After the legislative session concluded, MBI made $3050 in contributions to Republicans, and $30,000 to Democrat candidates.
MBI sent each of the six “pro-business” Democrat candidates a check for $5000.00 on June 23rd. The six democrats receiving contributions were McKinley Bailey, Brian Quirk, Doris Kelley, Jerri Huser, Dolores Mertz, and Larry Marek.
On one hand, I understand MBI wanting to thank those six Democrats for blocking the union agenda, but their generous contributions really only do one thing, help maintain Democratic control of the Iowa House under the leadership of anti-business Speaker of the House Pat Murphy.
While the pro-business six are rightfully credited with stopping the doctor shopping and prevailing wage legislations, the very first vote they will be asked to cast is for who will lead them in the chamber. I also don’t really think it’s ever a good idea to invest in people who cast a vote and run from the chamber in fear for their lives.
Seriously, McKinley Bailey was all set to vote with Murphy in support of prevailing wage. Thankfully, he broke down and did the right thing, and then ran to his car in the parking lot. People like Brian Quirk and Larry Marek are no better either.
Maybe instead of investing $30,000 in unstable Democrats, MBI should invest in making sure Patrick Murphy is no longer Speaker of the House. The only way MBI can truly protect their interest is to help Republicans win back control. Republicans have consistently shown that they are firm in their opposition to big labor’s agenda.
About the Author
Krusty Konservative has written 223 stories on this site.
Herschel Krustofski is the pseudonym for the anonymous author of Krusty Konservative, a blog which focuses on Iowa Politics. Created in February of 2006, Krusty Konservative is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the Iowa blogosphere. Since its conception, Krusty Konservative has never shied from tackling controversial issues, and providing insight to the inner workings of Republican politics in Iowa.
10 Comments on “You Get What You Pay For”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Absolutely. We shouldn’t be “coddling” those 6 or 7 – we should be beating the piss out of them. Those are the seats we need.
Delores Mertz barely survived re-election last year she won by 35 votes. And the GOP nominee would have won if he actually took a stand on the second amendment and the life issue. There were enough GOP voters who didn’t like the RINO and went with Rep. Mertz. The other 6 or 7 legislators districts, I don’t know about their districts.
Currently, there is an independent (who happens to be my former Pocahontas County Co-Chair) who is running against her. So far no GOP nominee has stood up yet, if they do that will be interesting to see if Mertz runs again.
Krustosis whines: “Maybe instead of investing $30,000 in . . . . . MBI should invest in . . . . . House”
OhferKryingoutloud Krusty, now your arrogance leads you to telling lobbies / PACs how they should be allocating their money? Something smells un-republican about that.
Hey Michael,
Are you encouraging this “independent” to run as a Republican instead of as an independent?
If not, why not? He lives in your county and used to be on the party leadership with you. What does that say about your leadership? You do realize that by this guy splitting the anti-Mertz vote, Delores or a conservative Democrat will be elected in her place and that election alone could be the determining factor in who controls the House in January of 2011. That should be a concern to you, Michael. What are you doing to make sure this is a Republican v. Democrat race not a Republican versus Former Republican versus Conservative Democrat race.
If the first scenario plays out – Delores’ political career is over. She loses.
If the second scenario plays out, Delores is re-elected or a conservative Democrat is elected in her place. Pocahontas GOP loses. Republican Party of Iowa loses and overall…Iowa loses.
Michael, do the right thing. Do you want a marriage amendment? By electing Delores, you are not going to get that…why??? Because her presence in the House means Pat Murphy could still be the speaker. Do the right thing.
Madison,
I have talked to Tom about encouraging him to run as an Republican, but to no avail. In fact I have had several people talk to him about it. Secondly due to the nature of Tom being a good friend as a Chairman I am remaining nuetral in this, and will let the committee decide due to conflict of interest. As for the committee, high odds they will back Tom at this point no matter the party. It is the County Committee I am accountable to, and serve at their pleasure.
Personally I don’t subscribe to you must vote the party line no matter what, (as does the committee). I am at the point of being willing to vote for someone I agree with not someone I agree with 80 percent of the time.
Time will tell if their is a GOP nominee (probably will be), but if the committee decides to back Tom, I am obligated to follow them. As for the marriage ammendment I can see where you are coming from on this, but I would rather have solid conservatives in first, then some conservatives and some spineles RINO’s.
A side question our committee has dealt with is this if a Republican doesn’t follow the platform completely then are they Republican? Our committee has taken the stand that if their is a liberal Republican who wins a primary then the committee will not back him/her. In my mind doing the right thing is voting for who follows the Platform(as long as stays conservative) the best, not based on wether or not an (R) is attached to it. The best part is the committee is their along with me and was their before me sadly. Thank you for your questions and thoughts though, I do appreciate them.
Why would MBI give $30,000 to Republican candidates? Why would MBI want to die on the hill of abortion and gay marriage, when they can move more effectively by contributing to the conservative Democrats? Given the utter inability (or unwillingness?) of the Democratic legislature to get ANY pro-union legislation passed, I’d say MBI has played the game brilliantly.
This underscores the strengths (and weaknesses) of intraparty compromise. Strengths: The Democrats have a majority by having legislators like Quirk et. al. They get to siphon money from business groups and reduce the flow of said money to Republicans. Weakness: They can’t pass their planks unless those planks control a broad enough consensus to bring the conservative Democrats onboard.
For my .02, I actually think this is a *strength*, rather than a weakness. I don’t want government to move fast. And I don’t want government to move unless there IS a broad consensus. This is a “little ‘c’ conservative” principle, one that the “big ‘c’” party purists have no time for.
Mike C,
You have many valid points.
However, MBI needs to decide one big question…do we, as an organization, want to always be playing defense? Do we always want to rely on these 6 to stop the aweful/terrible agenda.
OR…do we, as an organization, want to be able to go on offense and make progress and institute an agenda that will allow our industry to prosper and grow and thereby also help Iowa grow?
Mike C is clearly only interested in protecting the status quo – in caution.
At what point do you decide you’re tired of playing defense and decide its time to score some points and invest in a team that will be much friendlier.
Mike C sayz: “I don’t want government to move fast. And I don’t want government to move unless there IS a broad consensus. This is a “little ‘c’ conservative” principle, one that the “big ‘c’” party purists have no time for.”
Hear-hear, now there’s a repubwho talks sense. Mike, I’d go out of my way to listen to you campaign some morning over breakfast at Ma’s Seed Cap Cafe and I’d probably hafta look for a reason to not vote for you come election day.
There is another danger in this. If I were a contributor to Master Builders of Iowa, they would have received my last contribution. Democrats are anti-business-not pro-business and this move is short sighted.
If Republicans were in control of even one House or Terrace Hill, there would be NO worry about selling out to the unions. It would be far smarter to contribute to Republicans.
Perfect example of the power of moderation. The money flows towards those who get results. The most powerful and effective elected officials were the six moderates in the house that stymied labor and the wingnut fringe of the left. Call them DINOs or whatever you want but in the end they are MODERATES. Deace and others like him can’t get over the fact that most of the smart Repub money is going to McCarthy and the band of moderates in the house. What the market is telling us is that business would rather cast their lots with pragmatists rather than the slack jawed tongue waggers of the looney right.