Kevin Wiskus has done what it takes. He’s the candidate for House District 94 who quit the Republican Party of Iowa over a brochure accusing his opponent, Democratic incumbent Kurt Swaim, of coddling sex offenders because he once acted as a court-appointed public defender for a man who served only four days of a 200-day jail sentence imposed on a lascivious acts conviction.

The brochure, distributed to voters throughout the Southern Iowa district that encompasses Wayne, Appanoose and Davis counties, asked and answered the question about why the defendant got such a light sentence: “How did he get such a sweet deal? His public defender, Kurt Swaim, was paid $946.30 to get him back on the street.”

The lie is one of omission. Public defenders don’t get to pick their cases and, if they refuse to represent defendants whose alleged crimes they find reprehensible, they could face disciplinary action under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. And though the argument that people who molest children sacrifice their own rights has plenty of emotional support, ensuring that criminal defendants have access to counsel is not only an honorable thing, but one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. judicial system.

The brochure also called into question Swaim’s vote on a bill that allowed for the early release of some sex offenders. Swaim voted for it, but so did 48 Republicans. Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants, a Republican, defended the accusations in the brochure as facts Swaim’s constituents “ought to know about.”

Mailings like that aren’t uncommon when the stakes are high, as they are in the battle for control of the Iowa House of Representatives, where Republicans currently have a two-seat majority that is vulnerable in this fall’s election. At home in their own districts, candidates on whose “behalf” these brochures are distributed often distance themselves and tell voters they had nothing to do with it, yet they “dance with the one that brung them,” as the colloquialism goes, rather than seek a divorce.

Wiskus and Swaim had agreed to run a clean campaign, and Wiskus had even communicated that to state GOP officials – as recently, according to an account in the Centerville Iowegian, as a couple of hours before he learned of the brochure’s existence. When he saw it, he wrote Swaim a letter, which said in part: “I do want to serve as state representative from this district, but not under these conditions. As of today, I am disavowing my allegiance to the Republican Party of Iowa and declare myself an independent.” He sent a certified letter to the state party denouncing “this type of vile campaign” and declined any further party support. He took out newspaper advertising apologizing to Swaim because “he will not get an apology from the Republican Party of Iowa.”

Attack politics aren’t the exclusive purview of the Republican Party. Democrats resort to those tactics as well. Rants told the Ottumwa Courier that the brochure was “a taste of their own medicine” and that Swaim employed a similar strategy two years ago. Such situational ethics – the idea that the morality of a particular act is evaluated in light of its situational context rather than by moral absolutes – erodes at society’s basic decency.

Last week in “Our View,” we suggested with sad resignation that “attack ads do work.” Perhaps the tide is turning. If he has not completely restored our faith, Wiskus has at least given us a welcome respite from politics as usual. He is receiving bipartisan praise for having the courage to tell party operatives they can’t hijack his campaign and say, loudly and clearly, “You don’t speak for me.”

This is what it takes for change to occur and for campaigns to focus on issues instead of emotions.

Beth Dalbey can be reached by e-mail at bethdalbey@bpcdm.com.