The Des Moines Register’s latest statewide poll conducted by Selzer & Co included more than a dozen questions about issues Iowa legislators are considering this session. Proposals to raise the gasoline tax and allow a large utility company to bill its customers up front for a nuclear power plant were among the most unpopular ideas polled.

Selzer & Co surveyed 800 Iowa adults between February 12 and 15, and results from the full sample were used to tabulate results on legislative issues. The margin of error for this part of the poll is plus or minus 3.5 percent. (A smaller sample of 611 likely 2012 voters were asked questions about the presidential race.)

About 29 percent of poll respondents identified themselves as Republicans, 26 percent said they were Democrats, and 41 percent said they were independents.

The Des Moines Register posted full results with question wordings here. Respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed various legislative initiatives.

The most unpopular idea suggested was “set rules allowing a utility to charge its customers up front for the costs to plan and build a nuclear power plant.” Only 18 percent of respondents said they favored that policy, while 77 percent opposed. That should send a strong message to legislators wavering on the bill MidAmerican Energy has lobbied for since early last year. Selzer’s question wording didn’t even mention the most unfair aspect of the proposal (the fact that the utility wouldn’t have to refund money to consumers if it decided against building a nuclear reactor).

Last year the Iowa House approved MidAmerican’s pro-nuclear bill, and the Iowa Senate Commerce Committee approved a nearly identical bill, but the full Senate never voted on the legislation. A memorandum written by Iowa Utilities Board staff in December 2011 outlined several ways in which the bill “shifts risk from the company to its customers and creates undesirable incentives.” Nevertheless, new Senate Commerce Committee Chair Matt McCoy seemed determined to pass the bill this year.

McCoy opted to take up the bill that passed the House in 2011 (House File 561), rather than try to bring the Senate’s 2011 version (Senate File 390) to the floor. House File 561 sailed through a Senate Commerce subcommittee in January and seemed to be on track to clear the full committee. However, the American Association for Retired Persons mobilized approximately 1,500 Iowans to call their senators urging a vote against the nuclear bill. Several statewide environmental organizations also encouraged their members to contact senators on the issue. On January 31, McCoy cancelled a Senate Commerce Committee meeting during which members were expected to vote on the nuclear bill.

If McCoy didn’t have the votes to get this bill out of committee three weeks ago, the Register’s new poll will only make his job more difficult. Why would you push for legislation fewer than one in five Iowans support, with a powerful interest group like AARP lined up against you?

I doubt the poll’s results on this question are an outlier. In the spring of 2011, two separate polls showed that Iowans opposed key aspects of MidAmerican’s desired nuclear legislation. At this point, I am cautiously optimistic that House File 561 will ever reach Governor Terry Branstad’s desk.

Just 31 percent of respondents in the new Register poll said they  favored a plan to “raise the gas tax 8 to 10 cents a gallon to pay for road and bridge repairs.” Some 68 percent of respondents opposed that idea. The Iowa Senate Transportation Committee and an Iowa House Transportation subcommittee have both approved legislation to raise the gas tax, but I remain skeptical that a legislature under divided control can agree to do this in an election year following redistricting. Neither Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (a Republican) nor Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (a Democrat) has committed to moving this bill. Perhaps Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is right, and many House Republicans will get behind this idea after the danger of attracting primary challengers has passed. I still think raising the gas tax would be a heavy lift for legislative leaders. Dozens of House and Senate seats are potentially competitive this November, and almost every day I see another news story predicting gas prices well above $4 per gallon this summer.

Legalizing internet gambling is also unpopular, according to the new Register poll. Just 28 percent of respondents favored that idea, while 69 percent opposed it. Democratic State Senator Jeff Danielson has been the legislature’s leading proponent of legalizing internet poker as a way to raise additional state revenues. Yesterday a Senate State Government subcommittee approved a bill on the topic:

The proposed legislation would authorize the creation of an online poker network and provide a regulatory structure for its implementation, operation and taxation. The bill would allow intrastate, interstate and international arrangements, and the expansion would operate under the state’s current gaming fee structure, he said.

Competing hub operators would be able to partner with state-licensed casinos under the control of the state Racing and Gaming Commission to operate affiliated online sites for registered players ages 21 and older who are within Iowa’s borders at the time they are playing. Danielson said out-of-state residents would be able to go to an Iowa casino, establish an account and play during the time they were in Iowa.

Several religious and socially conservative organizations are lining up against internet gambling. Given their opposition and the lopsided poll results, I don’t see an internet poker bill getting through the Iowa House.

The Selzer poll’s results on tax-related questions were not as straightforward as the Register’s recent front-page headline declaring that 60 percent of Iowans support commercial property tax cuts. Look at the wording of the first question on this subject:

A trade-off the Legislature is considering is about tax rates on commercial property. Reduced rates might make Iowa more attractive to business, and would also mean lower tax revenues for cities, counties and schools. Do you favor or oppose that approach?

60 percent said “favor,” while only 28 percent said “oppose.” But to my ear, that phrasing sounds more like a win-win than a trade-off. I suspect that many people heard “would also mean lower tax revenues for cities etc” as “people will have to pay lower taxes to cities etc.” A better question would have said, “Reduced rates might make Iowa more attractive to business, but might also force cities, counties and schools to cut services because of lower revenues.”

The next question asked, “If the Iowa Legislature were to decide to reduce commercial property tax rates, should it target more benefit to small businesses, or reduce the rate by the same percentage for all businesses, regardless of size?” The approaches favored by Iowa House Republicans and Governor Branstad would reduce all commercial property taxes by the same rate, while Iowa Senate Democrats favor a bill that would help small businesses more. The Register’s poll showed no strong preference: 48 percent of respondents would rather reduce the rate by the same percentage for all businesses, while 43 percent would rather target benefits to small businesses.

The next two questions reveal an apparent contradiction. Asked whether or not reducing commercial property tax rates would attract more businesses to Iowa and motivate existing businesses to add jobs, 73 percent said yes, while only 16 percent said no. That seems to show overwhelming support for some kind of commercial property tax reform bill.

Yet the very next question asked, “If the Iowa Legislature is going to reduce taxes in some way, which of the following taxes should get the highest priority?” Five options, along with “other” and “not sure,” were read out to respondents (callers rotated the order of suggested answers).

A plurality of 32 percent said personal income taxes should be the top priority for tax cuts. Another 23 percent said residential property taxes should be the top priority. Corporate income taxes and commercial property taxes were named by only 13 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Another 10 percent said lowering the sales tax should be the legislature’s highest priority if they are cutting taxes.

When asked a leading question about whether cutting commercial property tax rates will promote business, nearly three-quarters of Iowans surveyed by Selzer agreed. Yet only 12 percent of respondents in the same poll said commercial property taxes should be the legislature’s highest tax-cutting priority. That suggests that Branstad and state lawmakers are not on the same page as Iowa voters.

Iowans are inclined to support other business-friendly legislation. By a 2-1 margin, respondents favored spending “an additional $25 million a year in business incentives in an effort to create more jobs in Iowa.” By a 3-1 margin, respondents opposed eliminating “all tax credits to business.” In light of those findings, it’s even more striking that the same poll showed Iowans so strongly opposed to letting a utility charge consumers up front for a nuclear power plant.

Click here to view results for other questions on legislative issues. I wasn’t surprised to see that 54 percent supported while 38 percent opposed changing the law “to ban most abortions after five months of gestation, instead of after six months as the law currently allows.” Despite that finding, the 20-week abortion ban that cleared the Iowa House in 2011 remains a dead letter as long as Democrats control the Iowa Senate.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.