Cedar Rapids law firm pools 'lunch money' to eat with Culver

By James Q. Lynch

The Gazette

CEDAR RAPIDS – It's an old adage in politics – There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Members of a Cedar Rapids law firm who pooled their lunch money to eat with Gov. Chet Culver Friday aren't saying what it cost them. Neither is the governor's campaign saying what his lunch will cost him.

Culver ate with attorneys of Simmons Perrine Bergman Moyer and was presented with campaign contributions that were solicited by Roger W. Stone, a principle at the firm, who called the state a “major client,” paying the firm nearly $1 million in recent years.

“Gov. Culver is an important reason we have that business,” Stone wrote in an e-mail to partners and associates. He called the first-term Democratic governor “a longtime friend of many people in the office.”

“There is no such thing as a free lunch in politics or economics,” Stone continued. “Gov. Culver needs our generous support and checks for his re-election campaign. All of the members have benefitted and will continue to benefit from our firm's representation of the state of Iowa.”

 No one is suggesting Culver's lunch or the contributions to his re-election effort were illegal, but campaign finance reform advocates say it illustrates the need for stronger campaign finance regulation.

Such fundraising is common, according to Cary Covington, University of Iowa associate professor of political science.

“(Stone) is acting like a bundler, someone who gathers checks from many people to make a presentation all at once,” he said. “That approach has been around a long time. It's a way for people with common interests to make a bigger impact than their individual contributions would make one at a time.”

It may be legal and common, but Stone's approach raises red flags for campaign finance reform advocates who say the practice ought to be illegal.

Despite several calls to Stone, neither he nor other principles at Simmons Perrine Bergman Moyer responded to questions from The Gazette.

“In matters like this, even when something may be perfectly legal, it still might be wrong,” said Ed Fallon, a former state legislator who ran against Culver in 2006 for the Democratic nomination and an advocate for election reform.

The question to ask, according to Fallon and Adam Mason, state policy organizing director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI), is whether such fundraising is in the best interest of taxpayers and voters?

Stone's reference to “no free lunches” struck, Mason as “blatantly saying ‘write big checks so we have a better chance of getting what we want.'”

If that doesn't suggest a quid pro quo -- the concept of getting something of value in return for giving something of value, “it appears to be one of those situations where it's a pay-to-play type of thing,” Mason said.

“Well, what about the folks who are trying to make ends meet, who have payday loans, who are suffering under health-care bills or, in Cedar Rapids, still dealing with flood recovery?” Mason asked. “Were their best interests being represented? Probably not because they aren't the ones writing the checks.”

Writing a check is not the only way to have a positive impact on the political process, according to Andrew Roos, Culver's campaign manager, who said Stone's fundraising appeal was “simply worded unfortunately.”

“That communication did not come from the campaign,” he said. “Nothing has ever been communicated by us, or sought by us, or implied or even considered in any way whatsoever that would imply a quid pro quo.

“You would have to be stretching to make it look like that,” Roos said. “The governor supports openness, disclosure, trying to make campaigns as trustworthy as possible.”

His support of openness stops short of making public how much Culver collected from the Simmons Perrine Bergman Moyer attorneys until campaign committee reports are due in January 2010.

As for those people Mason said can't afford to write a check, Roos said there are lots of ways to influence elections – voting and volunteering, for example.

“Do you need to have a lot of money to make an impact in politics? The answer is no,” he said. “There are lots of people supporting Gov. Culver and lots of people do that without contributing money.”

People give to campaigns because they “believe in the principle for one reason or another,” Roos said. “They think Chet Culver is doing a good job and they think their business would do better if he's governor.”

Campaign finance reform advocates may question the ethics of current fundraising practices, the UI's Covington said.

“It's very hard to prove,” Covington said. “It's a fine line and raises a red flag. But absence a quid pro quo, then that's all you can do – say it looks suspicious.”

The real question is whether the firm is merely doing this to attract the attention of a public official whose time is limited or to grease the wheels for the future of the business relationship, he said.

 “Unless the contributions are being demanded in exchange for access or a favorable decision, then this is the way politics is done,” Covington said.