Could you or I get a $500,000 loan the way Ron Sparks did, with his income and assets? We could not, according to David Kemp, president of a financial consulting firm that, among other things, trains lenders.
At a minimum, a typical lender would require a salary ranging between $144,000 and $156,000, as well as $625,000 in debt-free real estate as collateral, to make a $500,000 loan, said Kemp, a former executive with Citicorp North America and commercial lender for two Southern banks.
Sparks earns a $79,026 salary as state agriculture commissioner. His Montgomery home is assessed at around $240,000, although Sparks has said that its actual value is between $300,000 and $350,000. He listed no other income or real estate holdings in his latest filing with the Alabama Ethics Commission and has said there were no co-signors on his loan.
"Just from a pure banking perspective, it wouldn't make much sense from that set of facts that anybody at a bank would make that kind of loan," Kemp said.
Even if his home is debt free, Sparks would need another $300,000 of property as collateral for a loan of this size, and another $70,000 or so of annual income -- under the rules that would apply to a normal bank customer.
Why can a candidate for governor get a loan for his campaign an average person would never be approved for?
Anyone who cares about good government can see this is problematic - this loan comprises 40% of the money Sparks reported in January. Without it his campaign would have been dead in the water. How did this miracle occur? Democratic voters need to know whether this is a normal loan or a favor from some secret Santa -- who may expect return favors in the future.
Once again, if there is more income, Ron Sparks should report it and if he used other, undisclosed property as collateral, it is in his best interest to make that public. Sunlight and disclosure are the only way to quash the rumors and speculation.
If you recall, in early August of 2009 I told you that Bradley Byrne and Tim James would be the top contenders in the Republican primary and that they would eventually be pitted in a GOP runoff to face Democrat Artur Davis in November. I stand solidly behind that scenario. My prediction at that time was based on intuition. Today’s confirmation prognosis is based on fact.
Flowers relies pretty heavily on end of year fundraising reports to back up his predictions. That may not be the case every time, but it's the way to bet. Candidates who can't afford to get their message out seldom win.
He also predicts Jim Folsom, Jr. will win a 4th term as Lt. Governor and that "Sparks will benefit from the George Wallace admonition that more folks vote against someone than for someone." I think that idea is not lost on the Sparks campaign as their releases lately have been much more negative about Davis than positive about Sparks. How much mud will half a million buy? We may find out because so far the media isn't distributing it for free.
From a considerably less esteemed/informed source, CasinoGamblingWeb says, "The leading candidate from the Democratic side is Ron Sparks." They also mention Republican Bill Johnson in a favorable light, although they didn't go so far out on the limb as to actually call him "the leading Republican."
It appears to be Sparks effort to seek a break from repeated questions about that $500,000 personal loan to his campaign. If you have time to kill, decide for yourself. Check Davis votes on energy and finance and anything else on the VoteSmart page here.
Looks like the bright, shiny object technique failed -- this is from today's Birmingham News:
Sparks said his reports are accurate, although he might have been better off reporting the personal loan to his campaign as a bank loan. But even if he had done that, voters apparently still wouldn't get a sense of Sparks' finances from looking at his ethics forms.
True, ethics forms require officials to list their income and assets only in broad ranges. But in our view, it's a problem if they are so vague they can fail to reflect half a million dollars in wealth.
I suppose it's possible that Sparks' ethics forms are accurate, but I seriously doubt it in the case of the 2008 form.
From 2002 through 2007, Sparks' Statement of Economic Interests (ethics form) lists income of "less than $1,000" from a checking account and "$1,000 to $10,000" from a mutual fund or savings account. He also lists debt of "Less than $25,000" from "Banks (include Credit Cards)" for those years. The strange thing is that his most recent form, 2008, lists neither outside income nor debt in any amount. 2008 was the first year Sparks used the online form, so he could easily have made an error with the new form, but in light of the $500,000 loan, it's hard to believe he actually had NO other income in 2008, let alone NO debt whatsoever, especially since Sparks recently stated he owes $60,000.
We won't get a picture of Sparks' 2009 finances until late April, at earliest, when his 2009 disclosure is due. Unfortunately, the $500,000 loan appears to have been nicely timed (Jan. 8, 2010) so Sparks isn't obliged to report that on his ethics form until April, 2011.So much for transparency. He should have correctly reported it on his campaign finance forms, though.
I'm frankly surprised Sparks hasn't corrected the 2008 ethics form or that state ethics watchdogs like the Mobile Press-Register or the Birmingham News haven't complained about it. It's almost certainly incorrect.
Who cares about the (large and boring) Republican gubernatorial field? All the excitement in Alabama's gubernatorial race comes from Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks. Chuck Dean of the Birmingham News writes ...
On Saturday, Sparks denied that he had ever implied the money came from his own personal accounts. Reminded of his previous statements, Sparks finally said he couldn't recall exactly what he had said earlier but said the letter should put the matter to rest.
It didn't.
Davis, who appeared along with Sparks and six Republicans running for governor at a Saturday forum in Hoover, said the letter does nothing to explain how Sparks qualified for the loan.
...
"How many people in this state making seventy thousand dollars a year, which is roughly his salary, who have no assets, whose home is valued at two hundred and some thousand dollars, can get a five hundred thousand loan with no collateral and no co-signers? If banks are that generous, it would be news to a lot of hard-working families in Alabama."
The only mention of the Republican candidates was the fact that six of them were present at the forum.
Remember the Meadowcraft plant in Wadley, Alabama that was forced into bankrupcy -- despite a backlog of business -- because Wells Fargo wouldn't give them a loan to cover operational costs? Obviously, Meadowcraft should have tried doing business with River Bank in Montgomery instead of Wells Fargo.
"This is the honest truth. I borrowed the money from River Bank and put it in my campaign," Sparks said in an interview Friday.
It's not unusual for candidates in to make personal loans or get bank loans for a statewide campaign.
Dicie Smith, senior vice president for River Bank & Trust in Montgomery, confirmed Sparks' statements in a phone interview. She also provided a letter saying Sparks had a long relationship with the bank and met its loan criteria, including credit history and ability to repay.
There's nothing here that couldn't (and shouldn't) have been released three weeks ago. Think of the bad press Sparks would have avoided had he pre-empted this story by releasing full details when the question first arose. Instead, the campaign stonewalled and only admitted the money was a loan this week. Sparks had previously said:
"I have the assets, and my loan to the campaign makes that obvious. ... I have been very blessed in my life. Through hard work, saving and investing, I have the financial ability to make this loan to my campaign ..."
Which only made things worse, as it sounded like Sparks had the cash or liquid assets to loan half a million to his campaign, when nothing else in his public disclosures ever indicated that kind of wealth.
It wasn't until Tuesday morning, during an interview with Rick Journey, that Ron Sparks admitted the half million was a bank loan.
“I am a good credit risk… I have the ability to go to the bank and borrow money and put it in my campaign,” he said this morning on FOX6 News Good Day Alabama.
... and said:
... he was willing to release additional documentation to resolve the issue.
“I’ll do it as soon as we possibly can… I’ll tell my campaign… absolutely.”
"As soon as we possibly can" turned out to take three more days, just in time to catch the all important Friday news cycle. This campaign certainly doesn't do damage control in rapid response mode. There's one other point worth mentioning from the most recent story -- payback. It isn't clear if this is part of Sparks' statement or in response to a query.
Sparks said no one co-signed the loan with him, and he has not yet repaid the bank.
Well, of course he hasn't repaid the bank yet. His campaign needed the money and will continue to need the money right up until June 1. Ron Sparks is personally on the hook for half a million dollars and he has to hope he can raise that much to retire the debt after June 1. I wish he had taken my advice and also added something like, "I'm willing to mortgage my future for this campaign because I'm confident that we will prevail."
It would have fit nicely with the underdog image he should have been embracing all along.
Update: Below is a statement from Sparks' Democratic rival, Rep. Artur Davis.
Statement from Congressman Artur Davis:
I am not surprised that for two weeks, numerous reports have questioned how a man with no assets and a $79,000 salary manages to transfer $500,000 to his campaign. I find it curious that Sparks failed to disclose on his campaign finance report that the source of the $500,000 was a bank loan; I find it even more curious that instead of being straightforward with the press in the past several weeks, he was so vague and so evasive on this matter. But I think one question matters above all: how many Alabamians could obtain a half million dollar loan with no assets, a home that is half the value of the loan, and no reported investments or other large holdings? Ron Sparks may think his finances are his business, but when a half million dollars lands in your campaign account on one day, and another $300,000 lands there a few days later by way of large gambling interests and PACS, voters deserve to know every detail.This late Friday afternoon letter from his bank does not begin to answer these questions.
I will just point out that the traditional media may have been asking questions for two weeks, but folks at this blog and others started asking about the $500,000 virtually as soon as we got the year end report -- a good three weeks ago. Open and transparent campaigns lead to better government, something all of us should be demanding.
No, this isn't some deep philosophical question. I'm genuinely curious as to the headline of tomorrow's email from the Ron Sparks campaign.
Yesterday:
Day 1: Still No Funding Plan
Artur Davis: The Man Without a Plan But Lots of Slogans
Can't Pay for Promises
On February 22, 2010, Artur Davis announced his 19-page “jobs” program, 19 pages filled with spending items like tax credits, tax incentives and new programs.
Today:
Day 3: Still No Funding Plan
Artur Davis: The Man Without a Plan But Lots of Slogans
Nineteen pages on jobs (probably copied from a Harvard economics book) and not one word about a plan to fund his many promises.
Notice anything missing? Like Day 2? Will tomorrow be Day 4 (which normally falls after Day 3) or Day 5 (the next odd number) or is it even predictable? We only have the first two terms in the series, so the pattern could be something completely different, like Next=(N)*2+1 which would mean tomorrow will be Day 7. The suspense is killing me.
BTW, love how they worked in a Harvard* reference today. Further down they use "dunno" nine times, to reinforce ... I dunno, something?
I swear, these missives make me downright nostalgic for the emails of former campaign manager Justin Saia, which were not sufficiently appreciated at the time.
* See Is Somebody Named "Harvard" Running for Governor, July 2009. We never got an unequivocal denial of that poll from the Sparks campaign, and their expenditures indicate they had a poll going during that timeframe. Perhaps they found the "Harvard" terminology plays well with "dunno" voters?
We've already seen television ad buys from Republicans Bradley Byrne and Kay Ivey in the Alabama gubernatorial race, now Democrat Artur Davis is going on the air with this ad in the Huntsville market, starting tomorrow.
Alabama First:
It's a positive, you can trust me, kind of ad on jobs -- arguably the number one issue on the minds of voters right now -- and ties in nicely with the Secure Alabama's Economic Future plan Davis unveiled on Monday.
I think this ad works better than either Byrne's (which were kind of cluttered and stilted) or Ivey's (view it here) because you have a narrator (major serious voice) talking about the issues and the candidate over images of Davis with ordinary people, Davis with supporters, Davis with family. There's no awkward candidate talking about himself as in the Ivey ad. Also not much wasted time or verbiage here, which I thought was a weakness of the Byrne ads. There's also a strong outsider element to this ad -- notice how it opens up with a shot of the US Capitol dome, and the voiceover is "While Washington tries to cut our NASA and missile defense jobs … Artur Davis is fighting for us in Congress, putting Alabama first." It sets up Washington as the bad guy (a pretty common view in Huntsville right now) then pivots to Davis as the guy up there fighting for us. I'm reminded of Davis' recent appearance with Huntsville mayor Tommy Battle in which Battle introduced him as "our Congressman from the 7th district, our friend who is always there when we have gone up to Washington." One nit: I don't think they needed the image of the economic plan superimposed onscreen quite so much.
The Davis campaign supplied a transcript and "fact check" table (I like that!) which you can see below the fold.
... a flyer that mysteriously showed up in my in mial box a few days ago linking former state senator and chairman of the Alabama Board of Education Bradley Byrne, considered one of the front-runners for his party’s nomination, with being a five-and-a-half generation Democrat and one-quarter generation Republican. (whatever that means).
... along with the check facsimile -- $500 to Bill Clinton.
Conservatives across Alabama swoon at the very idea!
Ron Sparks released a statement Monday indicating that the surprising half million dollar loan he made to his gubernatorial campaign was secured through a personal loan.
"I am a good credit risk. I have the ability to borrow money to loan to my campaign and that is what I did."
On his year end campaign finance report, Sparks did not indicate the money came from a lender and his past financial statements have never indicated he was a wealthy man. Via the statement, Sparks also said that would be "the end of the matter."
Of course it wasn't, and Rick Journey asked him about it this morning on Good Day Alabama and at last he seemed willing to disclose the source of the money:
During this morning’s interview, Sparks stated he was willing to release additional documentation to resolve the issue.
“I’ll do it as soon as we possibly can… I’ll tell my campaign… absolutely.”
Finally, the Sparks campaign is going to put this thing to bed. If there's a simple, perfectly aboveboard answer to the $500,000 question, why on earth didn't they release the additional documentation 3 weeks ago and save themselves a lot of distraction and unfavorable buzz? This is simple stuff and a number of other candidates have done it in the past. The statement should look something like this.
"I borrowed $XXX from Y Bank (or Mr. Y, as the case may be) in order to lend it to my campaign. This is an indication of how confident I am that we will win this election."
End of story, campaign continues from here. About damned time!
On Monday gubernatorial candidate Artur Davis unveiled his economic plan -- an Alabama jobs plan, if you will. It includes tax credits for new jobs that pay higher than average wages and jobs in high unemployment areas; lending programs geared to small businesses; expanded availability of venture capital; incentives for existing businesses that expand, upgrade or launch new products; lifelong learning accounts; tax incentives for adult education; child tax credits for working class families; initiatives to expand biotech and aerospace industries in the state; expanding nuclear power generation and transfer; a new rural energy initiative; expanded broadband and public internet access; a new rural infrastructure initiative and a plan to tie federal transportation funds to an actual statewide master transportation plan.
Now, I don't care for the nuclear power expansion and am still skeptical of offshore drilling (Drill, baby, drill! scarred me for life) but there is a lot of good stuff in there -- best practices from other states and ideas that haven't already been around the block a dozen times. This is the kind of plan that really could lift Alabama to the next level.Think North Carolina, Georgia or Virginia ...a place where we don't have to be eternally thankful for Mississippi! Another great benefit of Davis' economic plan is that it's finally shaken some lottery/gambling revenue numbers out of his Democratic rival, Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks.
For the better part of a year, we've been asking how much Sparks' Lifestart Lottery would bring in for higher education and the customary answer was, "more than we have now." Ditto the tax on casino gambling. Sparks wouldn't even commit to an approximate tax rate on gambling until November, when he said "I would tax it at the same rate that our neighboring states are taxing gambling."That could be as low as 10 to 15%, given that rates in Mississippi are around 11%. But now Sparks has unveiled the following plan:
The Sparks Plan
Now THIS is a Plan, Artur
“I'm the first and only candidate with a plan who has the money to pay for education during the worst recession of our lifetime. And, I promise you, when elected governor I will get it done for the working families of Alabama,” Sparks said.
- Close tax loopholes and make multinational corporations pay their fair share in taxes.
- Create jobs by expanding economic development incentives and targeting tax credits.
- Create an education lottery to give every high school graduate a colleg (sic) scholarship. Raise $400 million for our kids.
- Create voluntary pre-kindergarten for every four-year-old child.
- Make electronic bingo operators pay a minimum of 25 percent in state taxes, investing new dollars in our schools and in programs for seniors. Raise $400 million per year and give five percent to counties without gaming operations.
- Create a $1 billion highway construction program that will create 30,000 new jobs and impact every county in Alabama, along with $400 million in additional funding from the federal GARVEE program.
Follow me below the fold for some analysis and perspective on Ron Sparks' economic plan.
As reported in a previous "On the Road with LIA" post, we attended the February 5th meeting of the Downtown Democrats club in Birmingham.
We were anxious to see the Democratic Attorney General candidates for the first time. All three: Giles Perkins, James Anderson, and Michel Nicrosi spoke and answered questions. (Please email me if you have a url for Anderson.)
As Countrycat noted in an earlier post, we were most impressed with Nicrosi, but Giles Perkins also came across well. He is an attorney, a former Executive Director of the Alabama Democratic Party and definitely has the right attitude towards the current Attorney General: "Troy King is a disaster and it is our duty to remove him from public life."
In a USA Today column, David Person tackles a question we have often wrestled with ... and calls BS on it:
The "black enough" argument is antiquated and offensive, but it's a game high-profile African-American candidates seem doomed to play — at least in part because old-school civil rights leaders keep it alive.
Perhaps they keep it alive because it's what they know. Not content to stop there, Person brought a new voice to the conversation:
"Generally, the moment that we're in now is one where the primary need is the protection of human rights, to encode them as civil rights," Benjamin Jealous, CEO of the NAACP, told me. "What that requires is something different than when the primary objective is to enforce civil rights."
"If you're enforcing civil rights, you're going to need a good lawyer," Jealous continued. "For human rights, you need a plurality or super plurality of voters. You must speak in the most universal terms possible."
Times have changed (that's a Good Thing) and new times require a different kind of leader. It seems an obvious consequence of actual progress, but some people don't see it that way. In the end, it didn't hurt Obama. We'll see how big a problem this is for Davis.
A friend sent me this Josh Goodman article from Governing.com:
The Republican win in Alabama was, if anything, even more impressive. Republican K.L. Brown scored a 14-point win in a seat that previously had been held by a Democrat.
Republican legislative gains in Alabama are, in a way, more surprising than the party's gains elsewhere. Democrats won so many seats in traditionally Republican territory in 2006 and 2008 that even in a neutral year or slightly Dem-friendly year, they were guaranteed to lose a lot of those seats.
But, that dynamic can't explain Republican gains in Alabama (this isn't their first special election win). For Democrats, 2006 was a great year in lots of places, but Alabama wasn't one of those places. Republican Gov. Bob Riley won reelection easily and Republicans won most of the statewide offices in the state.
Goodman gives a lot of the credit for Republican successes to Bob Riley and his commitment to raise money for 2010 legislative elections even though he will no longer be governor when that Legislature is seated. That's obviously a factor, but I think a lot of the credit has to go the the Alabama Democratic party.
The ADP has been unable to reverse or even stop a 25 year Republican trend in the Legislature and in statewide and even local offices. Alabama has gone from a state where Democrats held almost all elected offices at every level to one where parity is clearly within sight and could happen this year. Democratic leaders have touted their success at "holding onto the Legislature" in 2006 and vow that that is once again their goal in 2010. That isn't a goal, it's called having your back to the wall.
Sometimes the more tightly you grip something, the more it squirts through your fingers. I would suggest that the Alabama Democratic Party has dug in with status quo candidates and a status quo argument -- all of which may have worked fine in 1986 or even 1998 -- with zero attraction for new voters or dissatisfied voters. I'm not hearing anything new or different or exciting from Democratic leaders in the Legislature or in our party. Sure, there are some exciting candidates here and there -- Nicrosi at AG, Davis at Gov. and Sherer at Treasurer come to mind -- but they're running without the blessing of the party apparatus.
At some point, "Reelect us because we'll keep doing the same thing we've always done" loses its luster. I fear that point will be 2010 and I'd like to see the Alabama Democratic Party come out with a plan and a message that would attract voters and make them want to work and vote for our candidates.
Candidate for governor Ron Sparks comes across as a man who is getting very frustrated with calls for him to reveal those assets that allowed him to lend his campaign a half-million dollars when his state ethics filings show only modest means.
His campaign released a statement late Friday that said, in part: "I am a 57-year old man with very little debt. I own residential property and property in North Alabama. I pay my bills. I am a good credit risk. I have the ability to borrow money to loan to my campaign and that is what I did."
The statement went on: "This is the end of this matter. I refuse to be held to a standard other candidates are not required to meet."
...
Asked if the money for the loan came in any way from gambling interests or from gambling winnings, Sparks said, "I have the ability through my resources to do it, and I did it on my own with no gambling interests whatsoever."
The Advertiser also mentioned that Sparks previously told a "political blogger" (that's us) "I want people to know what I make." He also said he wanted people to know what he owned and what he owed.
We picked up all the available Statements of Economic Interests (SEI) for Ron Sparks at the Alabama Ethics Commission on Friday. There isn't much there. In fact, the only numerals Sparks had to enter on the forms are in the address and phone number fields.
From 2002 through 2007 Ron Sparks reported "other income information" (section 6)consisting of:
His Ag. Dept. salary of $50,000 - $150,000
AmSouth Mutual Fund -- $1000 -$10,000
AmSouth Checking -- Less than $1000
The information in section 6 for all years 2002 - 2007 is exactly the same. This form is from 2002, click to enlarge.
In 2008 Sparks filed online (click for image) and does not list any "other income" in section 6 of the form, just "Not Applicable." It doesn't appear that the reporting requirements have changed -- Bradley Byrne's 2008 form lists interest income of "less than $1000," for example. What happened to the mutual fund and the checking account?
From 2002 through 2007 Ron Sparks also reported "indebtedness information" (section 8) consisting of:
Banks (include Credit Cards) or "Less than $25,000."
The image below is secton 8 of Sparks' 2002 SEI -- the information is the same for 2002 - 2007. Click to enlarge.
Sparks' 2008 form lists no indebtedness whatsoever. Note there is no requirement to list debt "associated with the (homestead) home in which you live." All of section 8 is marked "Not Applicable." Did Ron Sparks swear off credit cards in 2008?
Through 2007, Sparks only listed income from a mutual fund, a checking account and his salary. Now, let's say his mutual fund was earning 5% (for some of the years 2002 - 2007 it should have earned considerably more, but let's be conservative) and that it returned him $10,000 -- the maximum income level he marked -- the principle would have been $200,000.
That isn't enough to cover the $500K loan. Probably not even enough to cover it in conjunction with a mortgage on his home (worth approx. $240,000.) And remember, the mutual fund income isn't even listed for the most recent year.
Where did the money come from? I'm sure Ron Sparks is tired of being asked, but the $500,000 question isn't likely to go away unanswered.
If Mr. Sparks has had a recent financial windfall, then why not say so? If he’s that good at saving and investing, he should be touting his financial abilities to voters.
...
His evasions raise serious questions about his integrity and credibility. If he doesn’t see that as a problem, voters certainly should.
Some candidates may be independently wealthy enough to do that. Others may resort to loans when contributions are too slow to wage a competitive campaign.
The Mobile Register reported Tuesday that Sparks refused to tell the paper where the $500,000 came from, a credible question given that he listed no assets aside from his Montgomery home and no income other than his $79,026 salary as state agriculture commissioner.
Sparks didn't help himself in his response to the questions by pointing fingers at other candidates (though not Davis) who have loaned money to their campaigns, too. Certainly, other candidates' financial disclosures need to be scrutinized just like Sparks' disclosures. But that doesn't change the bottom line, which is that Sparks' ethics disclosures don't match what is ringing up at his campaign's cash register.
He needs to amend either his campaign reports or his financial reports so voters can better divine the source of the money. It's the honest thing to do.
Back in November, Ron Sparks told LiA he wished he could give the Alabama Ethics Commission his W-2 forms to show how open his finances are. Perhaps if these newspaper editorial boards made a request, Sparks would share his W-2s to demonstrate that his finances are completely above board.
Sparks actually loaned his campaign $500k from his personal funds (in other words, the loan was real and the money is in his account, rather than a figment placed on the report)
Sparks' self-reporting of his assets leads us to believe that he received this $500k recently from some source.
Then it follows that Ron Sparks will have to pay income taxes on that $500K as a gift, although it wouldn't show up until he files 2009 taxes, assuming the gift was made before Jan. 1, 2010.
Also, if he continues to claim that he had the $500k from his own investments, that income should have been reported to the IRS in the past. Someone should ask him to make good on his wish to release his tax documents -- the only way to definitively clear the air. And if the records show that Ron Sparks has amassed $500K by regular saving and careful investment over his lifetime, well that would make the Artur Davis campaign look a little foolish, wouldn't it?
Win, win situation for Sparks, if the money really does reflect a lifetime of careful financial management.
... to Ron Sparks' gubernatorial campaign. Over the weekend George Altman had a front page piece in the Mobile Press-Register about Ron Sparks' $500,000 personal loan to his campaign. The loan stands out in the 2010 gubernatorial field because, based on Sparks' Statement of Economic Interests, it isn't apparent that he had financial assets of anything like half a million dollars. Sparks responded to Altman's question via email:
"I have disclosed what is required, and until other candidates are willing to go beyond financial disclosure requirements, we should not be held to a different standard."
Strictly speaking, Sparks may not be required to disclose how he could afford to lend his campaign so much money -- Alabama disclosure requirements are nothing like as stringent as those for federal candidates -- but it would be politically smart to do so. Stonewalling reporters as to the source of the $500,000 makes it look like there's something to hide (Was there really a suitcase full of money on the doorstep? Or is the half mil illusory, à la Kay Ivey?) and the longer the speculation lingers, the worse Sparks looks.
Full disclosure would also be in line with Sparks' own stated desire to be as open as possible. He addressed ethics and transparency, specifically mentioning financial disclosure, when we interviewed him in November:
Starting at about 50 seconds, emphasis mine:
The other day I signed the chart when it talked about becoming governor, about your family. I even wanted to give them my W-2 form. I want people to know what I own; what I, what I owe; what I make. I think people would be shocked if they examine some other folks. I really do.
Sparks has gone from, "I want people to know what I own, ... what I owe, what I make" in November to, "I'm not disclosing where I got the $500,000" last week. That's a remarkable change in outlook in just 90 days and it should absolutely raise flags. Here is one of the cardinal rules of public life: If there's nothing to hide, don't look like you're trying to hide something.
Sparks stonewalled Altman on another point as well, refusing to give more information on $107,702.02 identified on the 2009 year end report as "transfer from another account." Since Sparks finally filed a termination report on his Ag Commissioner account Feb. 9 (one day after this reminder) we can see a matching $107,702.02 expenditure listed as "Transfer to Governor Account." The dates match.
That's the same kind of transfer Rep. Artur Davis made from his Congressional account -- which Sparks has repeatedly criticized. That transaction was completely aboveboard and there is absolutely no reason for Sparks to brush off the reporter who questioned it -- the truth is the right answer! This is downright counterproductive, since it gives the appearance something is being concealed and encourages the press to keep digging.
Ron Sparks needs to make a complete statement on the $500,000 and shut down this speculation about the source of his funding. The sooner the better.
Evan Bayh won't seek reelection despite a warchest as big as Richard Shelby's. The Hill has his pre-announcement announcement:
"My decision was not motivated by political concern," Bayh will say, according to prepared remarks of his announcement "Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election."
But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough, he continues. And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."
Bayh also lamented excessive partisanship in the Senate, citing the defeat of a bipartisan commission to deal with the nation's debt and the collapse of negotiations over a jobs bill.
Why is this more remarkable than Tim James loaning his campaign $2 million or Kay Ivey loaning hers $1.5 million or even Robert Bentley loaning his $777,000? (Summary of campaign reports here.) Because those folks are all wealthy -- heck, they're Republicans. They all have personal wealth and are known to have it.Ron Sparks, on the other hand, has always portrayed himself as an average guy from very modest beginnings -- worked at a sock mill in Ft. Payne, joined the Coast Guard, been a public servant, etc. -- so how is it that he can suddenly afford to fling half a million dollars into his campaign?
The Sparks campaign would not say where the agriculture commissioner, who earns a $79,026 annual salary, got the money for the loan or why he previously reported no assets. In an e-mail response, Sparks pointed out that most other gubernatorial candidates also made personal loans to their campaigns.
"I have the assets, and my loan to the campaign makes that obvious," the statement said. "I have disclosed what is required, and until other candidates are willing to go beyond financial disclosure requirements, we should not be held to a different standard."
How does "no assets" morph into an extra half million to sink into a political campaign, which is usually money down a rat hole? Either Sparks has been exaggerating his "common man" image for some time -- hard to see since he reported no real estate holdings, no income from investments, no interest from bank accounts -- or he suddenly came into some big money.
Perhaps he mortgaged his home, valued at $237,900, for half a million and sunk that into his campaign? What a story that would be! Remember when John Kerry mortgaged his family home to keep his presidential hopes alive? Or is this new found wealth more in the nature of "found a suitcase full of money on the doorstep." As other Alabama pols have done, maybe Sparks got lucky on the bingo machines.
A souce sends recent polling by Anzalone-Liszt on Artur Davis' popularity with Democratic voters in the 7th congressional district. The poll was in the field Jan. 24-28th.
79% of those surveyed have a favorable opinion of Davis. 13% have an unfavorable opinion of Davis.
So much for the "Democrats in Artur Davis' own district don't like him" meme. But wait, there's more. Check out the racial breakdown:
Among white Democrats:
70% have a favorable opinion of Davis. 25% have an unfavorable opinion of Davis.
Among African-American Democrats:
83% have a favorable opinion of Davis. 8% have a negative opinion of Davis.
That's a fav/unfav spread of +66 for Davis in his home district, among the voters who know him best, and the spread is still +45 among white voters only. That's damned popular!
Some of us may know "the way Alabama is" but apparently white Democrats in the 7th CD didn't get the memo that Davis is supposed to be posting Obama-like numbers with them. He's very popular with all Democrats in the most Democratic region of the state. If Davis can translate a chunk of this popularity with voters who know him to voters in the rest of the state, he's on track to be the Democratic nominee and maybe Alabama's next governor. Could that be the reason he's been criss-crossing the state for over a year, talking to all kinds of groups, letting them see for themselves who he is and the way Alabama can be.
Long time Alabama pol and pol-watcher 
Tommy Stevenson has the 
