Rumors abound, picture of Xi hangs next to Obama’s in Mayor Gluba’s office. Gluba’s lip marks prominent on both.
Cruising the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure reporting site for city candidates we found a few interesting things in Bill Gluba’s reports. More so on the expenditure side where we find confirmations about his associations and appeals, and cynicism about the whole “non-partisan” election thing.
The heavy hitters on the income side were Dick McNamara and Katy McNamara-Sommers, in at $500 each. Gluba has been in the real-estate business and so are they. A James Russell was also in for a nickel. Noticeably absent was any substantial incoming union money. But Gluba may have been magnanimous and suggested the money wasn’t necessary.
On the spending side we see that Bill Gluba has directed funds from his campaign for purposes identified as political contributions to partisan organizations in addition to tickets for fund raisers benefiting such entities. We are not referring to huge amounts, but neither are they insignificant in the scheme of municipal campaign budgets. He has also directed funds to left leaning charities or issue groups.
Among the essentially partisan organizations that donors to Friends of Bill Gluba for Mayor end up supporting, includes the Scott County Democratic Central Committee and The Iowa Democrat Party Senate Majority Fund, and his appearances at the Rock Island County Democrat Central Committee. The two year total for those entities amounts to over $600.
Political contributions Gluba directed through his campaign just recently include $70 to TOMPAC, a federal political action committee FEC # C00385732. It could be a fine point but by our reading, given the scope of that entity, shifting his campaign funds in the form of a political contribution to TOMPAC would seem to be a violation of Iowa Campaign Finance rules? No biggy perhaps, and besides, in liberals’ minds, rules are for others anyway.
Gray area or not, Gluba directs the money to TOMPAC, no doubt to show solidarity with the cause of helping to elect federal candidates inside and outside of Iowa including their support for other federal PAC entities such as Emily’s List. That’s right “pro-life” Bill Gluba directs money to an entity that generously supports the most virulent organization in the country exclusively dedicated to support of pro-abortion candidates. But of course “pro-life Bill” has no problem enthusiastically supporting the candidacies of Barack Obama, Tom Harkin or Bruce Braley, none of which have ever found a reason to protect the right to life of one unborn human.
Other entities one would not confuse with being right of center include financing his membership and other direct contributions from his campaign funds to the likes of the NAACP Davenport Branch; Quad Cities Interfaith; Progressive Action for the Common Good; QC Pride Fest; the St Ambrose Peace and Justice Institute ($250) and the John C Culver Public Policy Center ($250). And then there is this delightful one “Mu Chi Lamda Fraternity (Columbus , MO). Those are the sorts of things people give to when they give to Friends of Bill Gluba for Mayor.
There are also a couple of really chintzy line items on his reports for funeral flowers categorized as “constituency expenses.” Really Bill, only two constituents died during your tenure? We are thinking you just didn’t want to dig out of pocket when a couple of friends passed. But how touching, and how profound the gesture and honor, for the departed family to know that the flowers were paid for by “Friends of Bill Gluba For Mayor” because you can bet that was on the little tag . . .not!
Superficially perhaps there are other politically non-controversial donations out of Gluba’s campaign funds, but the larger issue for us is the abuse of campaign funding rules regardless of the legality, and of course the silliness of so called “non-partisan” elections.
Understand his were not close-out expurgations of left over funds, probably the intent of what legal aspects there are to it. They were distributions from an ongoing PAC entity that continues to raise funds right along. It amounts to Gluba’s little charitable vanity slush fund. You know, a little ward healing walk’n around money . . . some “be scene” money for some politically correct things . . . a little church pew money tossed here and there . . . enough to try to cover for the hard core donations to hard core liberal causes. And how stupid are people who give to him, allowing him to give to charity when they could give to their own charities and perhaps get a tax deduction? Oh well.
The main issue about the loophole
Davenport’s municipal elections are supposedly “non-partisan.” Theoretically then, people can give to a candidate’s campaign so as not to sully themselves giving to some “partisan” political campaigns. That was essentially one of the dogooder points when they advocated for non partisan elections. If we remove partisanship good government reigns!
But Gluba’s campaign finance reports, besides reflecting his philosophical grounding, serve to highlight what proponents of non-partisan elections logically should consider a cynical exploitation of a loophole.
Under the theory of the”non-partisan” election bill of goods sold to people by the phony supposed good government types, and their naive fellow travelers, campaign donations should presumably be used for electoral activities directly associated with the favored candidate — signs, campaign literature, postal costs, media buys — that sort of thing.
Most people probably do not realize that in Iowa campaign funds contributed in “non-partisan elections” may be distributed from a candidates’ campaign committee funds to political parties and county central committees, and to issue driven charities. We do not find that as objectionable with regards to campaigns understood to be partisan. It is apples and oranges although one does not have to like either.
An unrestricted ability to pass funds through to partisan entities from “non-partisan” campaign funds would seem to violate the high sounding sense of decorum that motivated the non-partisan dogooders. And they should be calling to task those politicians who cynically exploit loopholes. But of course it doesn’t violate Gluba’s sense of decorum . . . but then could anything . . . when he, as a representative of this community, bowed to a representative of a brutal Chinese government?
As we have suggested before, the push for non-partisan elections by “good government” advocates was convenient subterfuge for enhancing the interests of those that could not as reliably get their way with the vying interests inherent in political parties. The change to non-partisan was really about other interests, bypassing parties and their diverse interests in order to concentrate influence. They achieved their goal and “non-partisan” is what we supposedly have. While they may have misjudged their influence on some maters, in our judgement concentrating their own influence was what was really behind proponents of “non- partisan” municipal elections.
It was wholly uncalled for. Case in point: Scott County government is still subject to partisan elections. Are proponents of good government back then and now prepared to say that the Scott County Board of Supervisors is run by the unreasonable dictates of party? How about the current Auditors office? OK bad example. But the theory of partisanship does not make political entities unholy by that factor.
Now within the non-partisan office framework, the concept of political partisans giving to a “non-partisan” candidate’s campaign is appropriate and unavoidable. They / we are citizens of the community and are entitled to support the municipal candidate of our choice for whatever partisan reason.
But in the spirit of non-partisanship, which candidates often hide behind to solicit votes for such offices, it is fundamentally different for the office holder or candidate to work campaign coffers the other way around if any integrity is to be maintained with the concept.
Short of reasonable reporting requirements about income received, we oppose limits on the ability of candidates to reach the public with their message i.e. speech. Regulation on campaign spending should focus on fraud, vote buying and uses of campaign funds for which the donor had no reasonable expectation.
The solution is simple enough for non-partisan offices. Income received should not be distributed for any reason to partisan political activity. Charitable giving should not be allowed either because of possible subterfuge. Excess funds should only be distributed to support the Secretary of State’s voter fraud division or to allay costs of running elections.
R Mall
