With Iowa’s First District Republican primary just days away, voters are locked into a high-stakes cycle. Yet, tucked onto the June ballot is a name most have completely ignored, and perhaps for good reason. Perennial candidate David A. Pautsch of Davenport is once again staging an insignificant campaign, standardly trying to inject himself into headlines by invoking family values and morality at every campaign stop.
But while his political aspirations remain entirely irrelevant to the final outcome of the race, a glance at his public record makes one wonder why he thinks he is worth bringing up at all. What does the court file say about the morality of a candidate who can barely register in the polls?
The court file is a matter of public record. Pautsch v. Pautsch, Scott County Case No. 07821 CDCD048361, sits on Iowa Courts Online, telling a story far different from the holier-than-thou image Pautsch attempts to project.
Following his 1999 divorce, Mr. Pautsch was ordered to pay child support for his five children. Rather than fulfilling that basic parental obligation, the court docket runs for years with a dismal paper trail: garnishments, contempt motions, and orders to show cause.
By January 25, 2001, a Scott County judge ran out of patience with the future candidate. Pautsch was sentenced to thirty days in the Scott County Jail for an absolute failure to pay child support for his own kids. The very next day, he was delivered to the jail on a criminal mittimus.
Even while incarcerated, his attempts to avoid the full consequences of his actions failed. He requested work release, having his own advertising agency write a letter on his behalf. The court denied it. He then asked for “good time”—the routine grace of early release for good behavior. The court denied that, too.
A Scott County judge does not send a father to jail over a standard, bitter divorce. A judge takes the extraordinary step of locking a father in a cell when, after every available garnishment and contempt order has been exhausted, he still refuses to provide the financial support ordered for his own flesh and blood. Denying work release and denying basic good-time credit are definitive character findings made by a judge from the bench.
It begs the question: how does a man whose conduct toward his own five children persuaded a judge to lock him up—and keep him locked up for the maximum duration—have the audacity to ask Iowa Republicans to send him to Congress as a champion of family values?
While Pautsch’s campaign amounts to little more than a vanity project destined for a swift defeat at the polls, the absolute shamelessness of his bid is worth noting. The voters of Iowa’s First District deserve to know exactly who is cluttering their primary ballot, even if his candidacy doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance.
