Doing Dunn
Posted on June 26, 2009 at 8:02 am
Yesterday, it was reported that Rep. Bill Dunn of Knoxville when he was the state House Minority Leader in 2006, received $15,000 in political contributions from Bill Haslam and his family. The money was given to a leadership PAC, GET R DUNN, which is now closed.
This little tidbit comes up because Bill Dunn was the lone Republican to vote against a bill in committee during the last day of the legislative session which would have lifted the ban on raising political contributions during session.
This, of course, was a devastating blow to the gubernatorial campaign of Lt. Ron Ramsey who desperately needs to raise funds during session next year to be able to compete with Bill Haslam, whose ability to self-finance is well known and well-established.
So, is this a big deal that Dunn received this money three years ago? Does it mean that Dunn is in the pocket of Haslam, that he was returning a favor for the Haslam family support back then?
I mean that’s the implication here, right? What other reason is there to report such a thing unless one thinks that it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts?
The interesting thing is that another reporter who picked up the story clearly doesn’t think so. Tom Humphrey at the end of his blog post on the story, a blog post that could lead the reader to believe Dunn was in Haslam’s pocket, adds a disclaimer.
“Note: Dunn has had an impeccable reputation for honesty that, so far as an old reporter can recall, has not been subject to challenge,” Humphrey wrote.
A bit of a mixed message there it would seem. After all, the Haslam family is very generous to Republican causes and candidates. Ron Ramsey himself has received money from Haslam. Many many Republicans have.
If I were looking for motive, I wouldn’t be looking at the money per se. I would look at the reason why that Dunn PAC got the money from is now closed. The reason, of course, is that a representative who has been ousted from leadership has little need for a PAC.
Leadership PACs are for raising money for political friends in order to get and keep their votes when you run for leadership. Bill Dunn is no longer in leadership.
Why is that? Well, he was replaced by Jason Mumpower, a protege of Ron Ramsey. Ramsey back when House Republicans were choosing their leadership in 2006 was the Senate Minority Leader and likely had already made his deal with Senator Rosalind Kurita and knew he was on the cusp of being Lt. Governor.
Building a Republican majority in the house to compliment what was to become his Senate Majority was likely very important to Ramsey, still is. Even more important than building a Republican Majority was building a Republican majority which had loyalty to him. A Bill Dunn-led House Republican Caucus would have been an ally for Ron Ramsey. A Jason Mumpower-led Majority was a better one.
Now, like Tom Humphrey says, Bill Dunn has an impeccable reputation for honesty and the like, and would not put petty grievances above his unvarnished and studious investigation of legislation. However, if one were looking for a ulterior motive for Dunn’s vote, a look at that leadership vote back in the day would seem as good as any.
In the end it doesn’t really matter. A Democrat, Rep. Mike Turner, voted for the measure and another Democratic vote, Craig Fitzhugh, changed at the last moment from yes to no. Bill Dunn shouldn’t bear the the brunt of the weight for this vote.
Because in the end, while it may be unfair for legislator to be impeded raising money for the a gubernatorial race while the legislature is session, nobody really cared out this rule until 2010 approached.
The passing of this bill, whenever it happens, if it happens, is going to look bad. Ramsey might be able to raise money but he will be seen as having pushed through a piece of legislation which he personally benefits from.
That and the fact daily stories about this Ramsey donor or that one who had business before the legislature will become a frequent occurrence if this bill passes. The money he can raise may be cancelled out by the heat he gets for changing the law and taking the money.
Ramsey has been put in a tight spot here, that much is true. But Bill Dunn’s vote and whatever the reasoning behind it, is the least of Ron Ramsey’s trouble now.
UPDATE: Rep. Mike Turner in the comments:
“I voted for the bill because it would help level the playing field, which is tilted towards money and wealth. As for my friend Bill Dunn done he is one of the most honest thoughtful people i have ever met, his argument against the bill was solid and reasoned. He pointed out that my reason’s for voting for the bill might be correct but he thought it sent the wrong message and might open the system to abuse, which is also a sound reasoning. How ever he made a better case against the bill than I did for it and even convinced Craig Fitzhugh ( another honest and reasoned person ) to change his vote. However we still have system that favors the wealthy when it comes to fundraising and we will look at this bill again in January, when we will not be up against a deadline ( the ending of the session ) and have more time to look at both the pro’s and con’s of the bill.”
Comments
13 Responses to “Doing Dunn”
ramsey has not been ‘put in a bad spot.’ He put himself in this spot, and figured the legislature would bail him out. Big difference. It isn’t too much to ask that legislators play BY the rules, not CHANGE the rules to suit their needs. Leadership means accepting the rules and living by them as an example for others - if Ramsey can’t do that with this rule, then how can TN reasonably expect him to live by others?
I voted for the bill because it would help level the playing field, which is tilted towards money and wealth. As for my friend Bill Dunn done he is one of the most honest thoughtful people i have ever met, his argument against the bill was solid and reasoned. He pointed out that my reason’s for voting for the bill might be correct but he thought it sent the wrong message and might open the system to abuse, which is also a sound reasoning. How ever he made a better case against the bill than I did for it and even convinced Craig Fitzhugh ( another honset and reasoned person ) to change his vote. However we still have system that favors the wealthy when it comes to fundraising and we will look at this bill again in January, when we will not be up against a deadline ( the ending of the session ) and have more time to look at both the pro’s and con’s of the bill.
What a novel concept, legislators playing by the rules.
So if the rules arn’t fair we should insist that they be so, right? Then we can have rules that are fair that everybody can play by.
Brilliant!
In 1993, Rep. Ron Ramsey’s first year in office, Ramsey proudly supported and sponsored a bill that prohibited legislators from raising funds for a governor’s race during session.
It passed the House but not the Senate.
In 1995 and 1996, Ramsey proudly supported and sponsored what is now law, including the Ramsey Ban.
There are other instances in which Ramsey didn’t like living under laws he promoted and helped pass.
Haslam Fan in Tiny Town
I hope Rep. Turner proof reads bills better than he does internet postings.
but the rules are, pretty much, fair. while ramsey, in this instance, is constrained by fundraisinhg rules, he is the second-ranked official in the state. he has a gavel and isn’t afraid to use it. he influences legislation to a very high degree. he is a highly visible candidate - he has name recognition, access to the media any time he wants it, and can behave like an executive and remain above the fray during legislative season. All of what he already possesses the others are raising money to obtain.
but, from the other standpoint - as the leader of the senate, he needs to at least seem to be above reproach. if he’s out raking in the money during while the senate’s in session, there’s a possibility for abuse - abuse he may not even be aware of but conducted on his behalf.
the entire way we fund campaigns stinks. that’s no reason to make it stink even further. a wise politician will know how to use the office of lt. gov. to advantage; the poor one will just stomp his feet to make things ‘fair’.
PROOF READ, WHAT A GOOD IDEA.
ACK -
Great post. In all sincerity, you have certainly brought your “A” game this week!
Cheers,
Rob
ACK -
Great post. In all sincerity, you have certainly brought your “A” game this week!
Cheers,
Rob
It’s not rocket science. This is the game the Haslam’s have played for years and years trying to extend the Haslam Empire across the state. Buying off politician after politician. Bill running for governor is yet the next step in their family’s lust for power.
Problem is this time regular people are going to have to be convinced that “Silver Spoon” Bill Haslam is the right guy for the job.
I’ll tell you this, it will take every penny of Haslam’s money to convinced this red-blooded, blue collar state that that sissy man should be our governor!
The difference was when Ramsy voted for the limit their was also a limit put on how much a person could personally finance their own campaign. Bredesen changed the rule with the help of the A.G.
Sice then, state wide politics has become a rich mans game.
Bill Haslam = best governor money can buy…. I love Pilot Oil cause they sell cheap cigarettes