Share any reactions to today’s debate between Democratic Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad in this thread. My thoughts are after the jump.

Note: some Bleeding Heartland readers have had trouble commenting lately using Internet Explorer. The problem seems to disappear when they try a different web browser (such as Firefox, Safari, or Chrome).

UPDATE: Watched the whole debate on Iowa Public television, which has posted the video on the web. To my mind, this was Culver’s strongest performance, and he probably helped himself with people who once supported him but weren’t sold on a second term yet. Branstad didn’t make any huge mistakes, but he evaded several questions and came across as hesitant at times. I doubt any Branstad supporters would change their minds based on the debate, though. More specific comments about each candidate’s strong and weak moments are at the bottom of this post.

Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad debate for the third and last time today at noon in the Iowa Public Television studios. You can watch live at the Des Moines Register website, IPTV.org or on Mediacom Channel 119. Tonight Iowa Public TV will rebroadcast the debate statewide at 8 pm.

After the jump I’ll cover recent news from the gubernatorial campaign and the main points Culver and Branstad are likely to emphasize today.  

The latest round of financial reports for Iowa statewide candidates are available on the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board website, and once again Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley has turned in strong numbers. Thanks to transfers totaling $547,500 from the Republican Party of Iowa, Findley raised $756,617 between July 15 and October 14. During the same period, Democratic incumbent Tom Miller raised $243,326. The huge support from the Iowa GOP allowed Findley to spend more than twice as much as Miller during the reporting period ($661,252 to $298,604). Most of each candidate’s spending went toward advertising: $564,000 for Findley and $225,000 for Miller. Findley has been up on statewide radio for a month and started running television commercials before Miller did. To my knowledge, Miller has not done any radio advertising. Lynn Campbell listed the largest donors to the Findley and Miller campaigns at IowaPolitics.com.

The state party’s massive support for Findley is striking. Republicans have not run a strong challenger against Miller for ages. The party didn’t even nominate a candidate for attorney general four years ago. Also, the Iowa GOP did essentially nothing for state treasurer candidate Dave Jamison or secretary of state candidate Matt Schultz. Jamison received contributions from several of Findley’s high-dollar individual donors and some of the same political action committees backing her (including those created by potential presidential candidates), but the only direct support from the Republican Party came from some GOP county central committees. Schultz received donations from some of those presidential candidate PACs but even less than Jamison from the county central committees and “usual suspect” individual donors.

One could argue that Findley earned the party’s backing through her strong fundraising. She reported far more donations in May and July than the other Republican challengers for statewide offices. Without any financial support from the Iowa GOP, Findley would still have been competitive with her opponent’s contributions and cash on hand totals. She has been an energetic campaigner all year, and serving as Representative Steve King’s top staffer for seven years probably opened a lot of doors for her in terms of fundraising.

Jamison raised $60,479.25 between July 15 and October 14. That was more than the $32,070.52 State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald raised during the same period, but Fitzgerald had $94,073.48 cash on hand as of October 14 compared to $14,608 for Jamison. Schultz raised $25,903.60 since the July disclosure reports, while Secretary of State Michael Mauro raised $52,862.51. Mauro had $64,267 on hand as of October 14, while Schultz had $7,000.94 on hand and $18,174.77 in unpaid bills to himself. If I were Jamison or Schultz, I’d be upset to be ignored by the state party that gave Findley more than half a million dollars. A hundred thousand or two for Jamison and Schultz would have been enough for a bare-bones paid advertising campaign.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad has been praising Findley at just about every campaign stop for months. He makes a brief appearance in one of her tv ads too. Before the June primary, I thought perhaps Branstad was singling out Findley because there were competitive GOP primaries for the other offices. However, even after winning their primaries Jamison and Schultz haven’t received as much attention or help from Branstad as Findley has.

Bleeding Heartland readers, share your own thoughts about the Iowa Republican establishment’s strong support for Findley in this thread.

Final note on the attorney general’s race: Findley and Miller debated yesterday in Iowa City. You can read about the highlights at the Des Moines Register blog, WCCC.com, Radio Iowa and IowaPolitics.com. Unfortunately, the debate won’t be broadcast on Iowa Public Television, but Mediacom cable subscribers can watch it on channel 22 at 2 pm on October 26 and 11 am on October 31. In the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City market, Mediacom subscribers can watch the debate at 7 am on October 24, 8 pm on October 25 or 7 am on October 31.

The Iowa for Freedom coalition launched another statewide television commercial today urging Iowans to vote against retaining Supreme Court justices Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker. The concept and images strongly resemble the coalition’s first tv ad on the subject, which started running in mid-September.

Video, transcript and comments are after the jump.

The secretary of state campaign isn’t often in the news, but both candidates are now using paid advertising to get their message to the voters. Incumbent Michael Mauro launched his first campaign television commercial this week, a spot focusing on his accomplishments and bipartisan work. Challenger Matt Schultz is running a radio ad that emphasizes his call for photo ID requirements and his Republican affiliation.

Videos, transcripts and comments are after the jump.

In another sign of a competitive race in Iowa’s second Congressional district, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $90,000 to run a television commercial against Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

The ad targets Miller-Meeks’ support for a national sales tax, but does so in a misleading way. Video, script and a few comments are after the jump.

Attorney general candidate Brenna Findley needs a strong Republican wave to defeat the better-known 28-year incumbent Tom Miller, and her new television commercial features a visual endorsement from GOP gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad.

The ad, script and some commentary are below.

Anyone go to the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last night? If you missed it, like I did, Kay Henderson posted a good live-blog at Radio Iowa. Keynote speaker Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, called plans to cut preschool funding “dumb and dumber”:

“In a year when there are some of the worst and craziest ideas are being put forth by Republican candidates, perhaps the worst in the country is cutting pre-K here in Iowa,” Rendell said.

Newspaper endorsements are starting to come in. The Cedar Rapids Gazette endorsed Branstad for governor today. The Des Moines Register ran a full-page editorial urging readers to retain the Iowa Supreme Court justices, calling the retention vote “by far the most important question in this year’s election.”

On a related note, former Republican Governor Bob Ray recorded a radio commercial for Fair Courts for Us, which asks Iowans to turn over the ballot and vote “yes, yes, and yes to retain the Iowa Supreme Court.”

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?  

A longer update on the governor’s race is in progress, but Terry Branstad’s comments on the budget during yesterday’s Des Moines Register interview are a must-read. Since the day he declared his candidacy, Branstad has said “the cost of government must be reduced by at least 15 percent.” He put that promise in his stump speech and in his television and radio commercials. But anyone who has paid attention to his campaign rhetoric could see that the program cuts he has mentioned so far wouldn’t put Iowa on track to reduce spending by 15 percent over five years. Moreover, Branstad’s property tax relief proposal depends on the state taking over some county government functions, which would increase the state budget.

As Jason Clayworth writes,

The Register has for weeks requested Branstad outline how he would reduce Iowa’s $5.3 billion budget, of which more than 80 percent is spent on education and human services that assist the state’s economically- or physically-disadvantaged families.

Branstad’s been good at evading such questions, but his time ran out yesterday when he sat down face to face with the Register’s reporters and editorial writers. I encourage you to read Clayworth’s whole piece as well as Kathie Obradovich’s take. Some excerpts are after the jump.

I figured Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks was too conservative to have a chance against Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district. Loebsack represents the most Democratic-leaning House district in the state (partisan index D+7), and Miller-Meeks failed to reach the 40 percent mark in 2008. But I was wrong. Plenty of House incumbents who cruised two years ago are in tough races now, and many signs point to a highly competitive rematch in IA-02.

It’s been too long since Bleeding Heartland last checked in on this race. Television commercials for Miller-Meeks and Loebsack are after the jump, as well as highlights from this week’s debate between the candidates.

Former Republican Governor Bob Ray is co-chairing a new group that will urge Iowans to retain three Supreme Court justices who are on the ballot:

The group, Fair Courts for US, plans to stage a direct mail and media advertising campaign as part of a statewide grassroots answer to several conservative advocacy groups that are urging Iowans to vote against retention of Chief Justice Marsha Ternus as well as Justices Michael Streit and David Baker.

Three of the four co-chairs are prominent Republicans: Ray, who was governor from 1969 to 1983, Art Neu, who was lieutenant governor from 1973 to 1979, and Sioux City attorney Dan Moore, a past-president of the Iowa State Bar Association and former secretary and treasurer of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial campaign. The fourth co-chair is Democrat Christie Vilsack, who was first lady from 1999 to 2007.

[Moore] said there are other avenues available to those who disagree with a court decision, such as appealing to a higher court or amending the state constitution, rather than targeting a judge or justice up for retention based just on one decision.

“The courts are accountable to the constitution and to the rule of law and not politicians. It’s not a popularity contest that’s run here,” Moore said. “(In) our system of justice, courts must look at the facts. They must apply the laws and make a determination for an outcome of a case. Our citizens deserve the very best courts that they can have access to and that’s what they have today.” […]

“Our system is far and away superior to those states where judges are elected every four years. That’s why Fair Courts For Us is urging Iowans to take a stand and vote ‘yes’ to retain the justices and preserve our system of jurisprudence,” Ray said.

I wish this effort every success, but I don’t know how much grassroots work can be accomplished with less than three weeks left before the election. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, nearly 250,000 Iowans had requested absentee ballots as of October 14, and nearly 120,000 ballots had already been returned.

I hope Fair Courts for Us has television and radio commercials featuring Ray ready to launch as soon as possible. Ray commands tremendous respect among Iowans who remember him as governor, and older Iowans are least likely to support the Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien decision on marriage. Backers of the Iowa for Freedom effort to oust the judges have been advertising statewide for a month already and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign.

Two other groups are trying to educate the public about the benefits of Iowa’s current judicial system: the Justice, Not Politics coalition and Iowan for Fair & Impartial Courts. However, those advocates are not explicitly urging Iowans to vote yes on retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker.

UPDATE: Fair Courts for Us started running this 60-second radio commercial in seven major Iowa markets on October 15. My transcript:

Sound of football game, tackle, referee’s whistle, sports announcer’s voice: And the flags are flying. Looks like a questionable call.

Referee’s voice: Unnecessary roughness.

Sports announcer: I think we’re gonna see some fans calling for these refs’ jobs.

Bob Ray: Listen, we’ll never agree with every call, but you shouldn’t fire the good referees over just one call. The same is true for the Iowa Supreme Court. I’m Bob Ray, a Republican and former Iowa governor. The Iowa Supreme Court has been making solid judgments over the years. The court protected Iowa families by requiring convicted sex offenders to live at least 2,000 feet away from a school or child care center, protected Iowa seniors, and protected our individual property rights. Please join me, Bob Ray, in turning over the ballot and voting yes, yes, and yes to retain the Iowa Supreme Court. There’s enough politics out there. We don’t need it in our courts.

Announcer: Paid for by Fair Courts for Us.

I wouldn’t have picked Iowa’s ineffective sex-offender residency restrictions as the best example of how the Supreme Court has worked for Iowans. This law clusters sex offenders in a few areas, and “many of those who work most closely with sex offenders and say restrictions are not working and public safety would benefit from change.” That’s not to say the Supreme Court’s decision on this law was incorrect (similar laws have been upheld in other states), but Iowans weren’t “protected” by the law.

In any event, this commercial is obviously targeting a conservative audience who might be inclined to vote against the judges, as well as senior citizens who probably remember Ray as governor.  

Since last spring, I’ve thought conservatives who denied the Iowa Supreme Court’s authority to rule on marriage didn’t grasp the judicial review concept. But Reverend Cary K. Gordon of the Cornerstone World Outreach church in Sioux City proved me wrong with his prayer:

“Dear God, please allow the IRS to attack my church, so I can take them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Gordon says he’ll defy federal tax laws this month by urging his congregation to vote against the retention of three Supreme Court justices because of the ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. He’s asked 1,000 church leaders to join him, prompting a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service.

Churches and other nonprofit organizations are prohibited from directly advocating for or against candidates. Their tax-exempt status is at risk if they do, although the IRS rarely goes so far.

Gordon is among church leaders who feel the restriction is unconstitutional. He apparently sees no irony in seeking court protection.

Gordon has been recruiting Iowa clergy to preach a “no” vote on judicial retention for the past month. He thinks he has a strong case on First Amendment grounds. There’s plenty of legal precedent for requiring tax-exempt organizations to refrain from certain kinds of political advocacy. But I’m more amused by Gordon’s desire to have the courts strike down part of a tax code adopted by the people’s representatives. How is that different from the Iowa Supreme Court striking down a key provision of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act?

Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, one of three high court judges on the ballot this year, noted Gordon’s hypocrisy in a speech at Iowa State University yesterday:

“The pastor claims this law is unconstitutional, and has vowed to challenge the law – where? In the courts,” she said. “It seems the pastor is quite comfortable arguing the will of the people, as expressed in this federal law, can be declared void in the courts.”

Ternus also asserted that activists urging a no vote on retention “are blinded by their own ideology.”

“They simply refuse to accept that an impartial, legally sound and fair reading of the law can lead to an unpopular decision.” […]

One of the main arguments for those wishing to oust the justices is centered around the idea that the justices did not have the authority to overturn the marriage law. As she extensively points out, judicial review is entrenched in both the American and Iowan judicial tradition, seeing support from the 1787 Constitutional Convention and from the authors of the Iowa Constitution. […]

Critics have also said justices subverted the will of the people by overturning a state law that is supported by a majority of Iowans. Ternus refutes this claim and other claims of judicial activism by saying the court fulfilled its constitutional role by acting in the interests of protecting constitutionally protected rights.

“When ruling that a statute violates the constitution the court does not usurp the powers of the other branches of government, the court exercises its own authority,” she said. “The court is not legislating from the bench, it is resolving a dispute between the parties by declaring the legislature’s act unenforceable because it violates the will of the people as expressed in their constitution.”

I’m concerned about the retention vote, partly because the judges’ opponents are spending so much money, and partly because about 25 percent of voters typically vote against retention even in a year without controversy. Share any thoughts about these election in this thread.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller started running television commercials this week. I didn’t see the video on YouTube or his campaign website, but I taped it during the lunchtime newscast on KCCI. UPDATE: The video is now available on YouTube:

My transcript:

Male voice-over: His number one priority: protecting Iowans. Attorney General Tom Miller [photo of Miller, words “Tom Miller Protecting Iowans” on screen]

582 dangerous criminals sent to prison for life–Tom Miller. [Words “582 in prison for life–Tom Miller Attorney General” on screen]

84 sex predators and rapists kept in prison beyond their original terms. [words “84 predators and rapists kept in prison” on screen]

And he continues to lead the fight in the legislature for tougher laws on sex predators–Tom Miller. [photo of Miller, words “tougher laws on sex predators, Tom Miller Attorney General” on screen]

A mortgage hotline helping twelve thousand Iowans struggling to keep their homes. [words “12,000 home owners helped” on screen]

Cracking down on crime, standing up for Iowans. Tom Miller: A tough crime-fighter, a proven attorney general.

They certainly mentioned his name a lot of times, which is important for an incumbent who’s not in the news every day. I would like Miller to emphasize his consumer protection work, but I’m not surprised he went with the “tough on crime” angle. Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley is running tv and radio ads emphasizing her commitment to locking up sex predators (which implies the incumbent is not doing that job).

Miller has lobbied the state legislature for tougher laws on sex predators, so his commercial is accurate. I think it’s worth noting that while the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws keeping sex offenders in custody beyond their terms, the programs “have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.”

The mortgage help hotline is important, and Miller should talk more about that kind of work before the election.

Speaking of foreclosures, the Attorney General’s Office announced today that Miller “is leading a 49-state bipartisan mortgage foreclosure working group, as part of a coordinated national effort by states to review the practice of so-called ‘robo-signing’ within the mortgage servicing industry.” The Wisconsin-based Daily Reporter has more on that effort. I’ve posted the press release from the AG’s office after the jump.

UPDATE: The Iowa Student Bar Association of the University of Iowa College of Law is sponsoring a debate between Findley and Miller, now scheduled for October 20 at the law school in Iowa City. Law students will submit the questions in advance.

Since the last time Bleeding Heartland caught up on the third Congressional district race, seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell’s chances for re-election have improved. Long considered Iowa’s most vulnerable Democrat in Congress, Boswell may now be in a stronger position than he has been all year.

New commercials, a new poll, and more are after the jump.  

Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin both launched new television commercials today, their first in a couple of weeks.

Videos and transcripts are after the jump.

State Auditor David Vaudt has been a heck of a surrogate for Iowa Republicans. Dozens of candidates have adopted his rhetoric about Iowa being on the edge of a budget “cliff.” His false assertions have been featured in television commercials for Terry Branstad, and he joined the GOP nominee for governor on a so-called “truth in budgeting” tour this summer.

There are a few problems with Vaudt’s analysis. Iowa is running a larger than expected surplus, not a deficit. Independent analysts have confirmed our state finances weathered the recession well. Those analysts include all three major bond rating agencies, which have given Iowa the highest possible credit rating.

As the Des Moines Register reports today, however, Vaudt’s management decisions may bring down that credit rating despite Iowa’s relatively strong fiscal position.

An outside observer watching the Iowa House and Senate races would have trouble telling the Republican candidates apart. No matter which district you live in, the Republican candidate is using the same talking points in media interviews, campaign ads, or direct mail. They point to deficits that don’t exist, heated sidewalks that don’t exist, and so-called reckless borrowing that hasn’t created any jobs (a big distortion of the I-JOBS program). Republicans blast supposedly out-of-control spending, even though growth in expenditures on business tax credits “far exceeds general fund spending growth” in Iowa. They claim the local Democrat has “forced” large property tax increases, even though economists have debunked that claim, as “dozens of factors” affect property tax rates. Those include local bond issues and changes related to Iowa’s “rollback” calculation.

Sandy Greiner, GOP candidate in Iowa Senate district 45, sounds indistinguishable from other Republicans. At her campaign website and in her her radio advertising, she claims state government is “spending too much.” Like many other GOP candidates, she asserts (wrongly), “The last four budgets passed by the legislature have been the largest in the state’s history.” Greiner herself voted for the fiscal year 2007 budget, the last one approved by a Republican-controlled legislature in Iowa. That budget provided for greater general fund spending than the current-year budget.

Greiner is unique among Republican candidates in one respect, however. No one else leads a group that’s raising and spending more in undisclosed political donations than all candidates will spend in all of Iowa’s 125 legislative races combined.  

From time to time I enjoy pondering counterfactual history questions like “Should the Republicans have nominated Romney in 2008?” or “Could Clinton or Edwards have beaten Obama in Iowa?”

Since establishment Republicans suffered shocking losses last month in the Delaware and Alaska U.S. Senate primaries, another question has been on my mind. Could a primary challenger have taken out or seriously threatened Senator Chuck Grassley in Iowa?

Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad face off in a few minutes at Cedar Rapids’ Coe College. KCRG and the Cedar Rapids Gazette are live-streaming the debate. From 8 to 9 pm people anywhere in Iowa can watch the debate on Iowa Public Television.

Unlike last time around, I won’t shirk my blogger duties. Live-blogging commences after the jump.

UPDATE: For the most part I agree with Todd Dorman; no surprises in the debate. I think whoever prepped Branstad for the debate was wise to have him waive rebuttals when the question didn’t play to a good issue for him.

In reference to the debate sparring over property taxes (see below) Culver’s campaign sent out a list of bills Branstad signed that authorized new or expanded property taxes.

Governor Chet Culver and Republican challenger Terry Branstad will debate for the second time tonight at 7 pm. You can watch live online at KCRG in Cedar Rapids, or statewide on Iowa Public Television at 8 pm. I’ll put up a debate discussion thread here later, but first let’s preview each candidate’s message on the big issues likely to come up tonight. As was apparent during the first gubernatorial debate, these two are masters at answering the question they want to answer.

Jobs, flood recovery, tv ads and more are after the jump.

Republicans didn’t recruit a high-profile challenger against two-term Representative Bruce Braley, who outperformed Barack Obama in Iowa’s first Congressional district in 2008. For months, Ben Lange’s campaign in this D+5 district attracted little attention as Iowa Republicans talked up their chances against Leonard Boswell in the third district.

Four weeks before the election, Lange is definitely on the radar. Yesterday the National Republican Congressional Committee bumped him up to the top tier of its “Young Guns” program. The NRCC hasn’t reserved any paid media in Iowa so far and isn’t likely to spend on behalf of Lange. But he doesn’t need their help–not with the 501(c)4 group American Future Fund reserving $800,000 in air time to attack Braley on top of direct mail and robocalls criticizing the incumbent.

A survey of recent news and advertising in the IA-01 race is after the jump.

Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley has been one of the hardest-working challengers in Iowa this year. For months, she’s been campaigning across the state, and she’s raised lots of money, helped by her close ties to Representative Steve King and an enthusiastic booster in Terry Branstad. Findley launched her introductory television commercial this week and has had a radio ad running since mid-September. In contrast, 28-year Democratic incumbent Tom Miller has been mostly invisible on the campaign trail.

Findley’s introductory tv and radio ads are after the jump, along with some other recent news from the attorney general’s race.  

Direct mail attacking Democratic incumbents has reached voters in many competitive Iowa House and Senate districts. From reports I’ve heard, most mailers employ cookie-cutter messaging about unsustainable spending, or supposedly “forced” property tax increases, which have been debunked again and again.

One GOP talking point had me stumped: in press conferences, message-testing phone calls and campaign mailers, Republicans have accused Democrats of spending thousands of dollars on “heated sidewalks.”

Follow me after the jump for background on the origin of this canard. You’ll be “shocked” to learn that Iowa House and Senate Democrats did not vote to spend money on heating sidewalks, nor are such sidewalks planned or installed anywhere in Iowa.  

Matt Schultz, the not-very-informed Republican who wants to be Iowa’s chief elections officer, has been on a tear lately. Last week he launched the Stop Mauro website, which publishes new allegations almost daily about Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s supposedly nefarious doings. A common thread in Schultz’s rhetoric, dating from the Republican primary campaign, is that Mauro engages in Chicago-style politics, which have no place in Iowa.

On October 1 Schultz slammed Mauro for filming public-service announcements regarding new voting technology for the visually impaired. Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson covered Schultz’s joint press conference with Republican state treasurer candidate Dave Jamison. Mauro’s office responded as well. There is an obvious public interest in educating Iowans about new voting equipment during election season. Mauro appears in the commercial, but so do a Republican county auditor and the president of the Iowa Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind. More details on the production, funding and script of the ad are here.

Schultz’s attention-getting press conference seems to have backfired. On Monday two more Republican county auditors joined the crowd supporting Mauro for re-election. One of the new endorsers was Marilyn Jo Drake of Pottawattamie County. Schultz is well-known there, having served on the Council Bluffs City Council since 2005. But Drake said in a statement, “I’m proud to support Michael Mauro as he seeks a second term as Secretary of State. Michael Mauro has been a strong and effective partner with county auditors across Iowa. I encourage all Iowans to vote for him this fall.”

Elected county officials rarely back statewide candidates from the other party. Schultz doesn’t have the experience to do this job, and his unfounded claims don’t inspire confidence from the county auditors who work with the Secretary of State’s office.

Jamison’s complaints about State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald are no more convincing. Jamison claims “taxpayers” are funding television, radio and newspaper ads featuring Fitzgerald. The ads publicize the College Savings Iowa 529 plan and the “Great Iowa Treasure Hunt,” which encourages Iowans to retrieve unclaimed property from the state. Deputy State Treasurer Karen Austin told me that unclaimed property finances the publicity for the treasure hunt, which state law requires twice a year. Those ads typically appear in May and September. The state’s general fund budget doesn’t pay for the college savings fund commercials either; those are funded by the 529 plan’s assets. Austin told Kay Henderson that many states including Iowa normally promote college savings in September. Jamison accused Fitzgerald of using public funds to promote himself, but

Austin says, “The way that we look at it, is having a state office that does this adds credibility to the program, and that is one thing that gives people comfort in understanding and knowing who is promoting this program, and why should I invest in this program and is that state tax benefit legitimate. So we have always felt that it is very important to make sure that people understand what this program is.”

Similarly, Schultz claimed the commercials on voting technology could have been produced without featuring Mauro. Guess what? Incumbents have some natural advantages in politics–like when Republican office-holders use taxpayer money to fund visits to all 99 Iowa counties every year.

Share any thoughts about the secretary of state or state treasurer races in this thread.

P.S. One point on the Stop Mauro site deserves additional comment. Schultz says Mauro “snubs the law,” citing a 2008 Polk County district court ruling. The court determined that Mauro violated Iowa’s official English law by providing and accepting voter registration forms printed in other languages. Legal scholars Evan Seite and Michael Zuckerman have analyzed this case in detail, and the issues at hand are more complicated than Schultz implies. In fact, the judge who wrote the King v Mauro opinion “suggested that the federal Voting Rights Act […] might require Iowa’s use of non-English voter registration forms” under an exception allowing for “language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” If plaintiffs ever challenge the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act in federal court, Mauro’s actions may be vindicated. Zuckerman argues that English-only laws are constitutionally vulnerable as applied to voting.  

At about 6:20 pm today I received a robocall informing me about one of the “most important” elections this year, which is “buried at the bottom of your ballot.” The recorded female voice told me that voting no on the three Iowa Supreme Court judges would send a “clear message,” since the judges had ignored the “overwhelming” will of the people, blah blah blah. Toward the end the caller again urged me to vote no on retention, adding a populist closing line: “This time, you get to be the judge.”

I was taking notes as fast as I could, ready to write down who paid for the call and the phone number of the sponsor. However, the call ended without giving any of that information. Using *69, I learned that the source of my last incoming call was 515-418-9339, but when I pressed 1 to contact that number, I heard, “The number called cannot be reached.” Subsequent attempts to dial 515-418-9339 didn’t produce a ring, busy signal or any answering machine message.

In federal elections, groups making automated calls must “identify themselves at the beginning of the call and provide a call-back number.” Although most robocalls I’ve received do provide that information, Iowa statute does not require it, to my knowledge.

I wonder why those campaigning against the Iowa Supreme Court judges are reluctant to publicize who is bankrolling their campaign activities. Shouldn’t the sponsor be “loud and proud” about what they’re doing? Perhaps they don’t want to call attention to the vast amounts of out-of-state money trying to influence the retention vote. The Washington, DC-based National Organization for Marriage and the Mississippi-based American Family Association Action are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars urging Iowans to vote no on retention.

Please share any relevant thoughts, and post a comment or contact me off-line if you’ve received the same robocall.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is headlining a sold-out fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad in Des Moines this evening. Branstad has praised Christie for “cleaning up the state’s budget and again putting his state on the right track.” One Republican speaker after another tonight will bash Iowa Governor Chet Culver, ignoring the fact that our state ended the last fiscal year with a sizable surplus and has been described as one of the states “least like California” in terms of budget problems.

Bleeding Heartland would like to welcome Christie to Iowa by comparing his record on state borrowing with Culver’s I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program, a frequent Republican punching bag.

The latest Des Moines Register poll by Selzer and Co finds three Iowa Supreme Court justices are in danger of not being retained this November. The Register’s Monday edition contains details from that portion of the poll, which surveyed 550 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent.

Among all likely voters, just 31 percent plan to vote to retain all three Supreme Court justices, 12 percent will vote to retain some of them, 29 percent will vote against retaining all of them, 16 percent will probably not fill out that part of the ballot, and 12 percent were unsure. Among respondents who planned to vote on the retentions, 44 percent said they would vote to retain all the Supreme Court judges, 16 percent said they would vote to retain some, and 40 percent will vote to remove all three.

Click here for the Register’s graph showing the breakdown among certain demographic groups (party affiliation, income, union household and born again Christian). Grant Schulte summarized the findings:

Retention supporters and opponents split largely on party lines. Voters most likely to retain all the justices were Democrats, women, younger Iowans, union households, and those with high incomes and college degrees.

Senior citizens, Republicans, men, tea party supporters, born-again Christians, low-income voters and those with only a high school education were more likely to vote “no” to all the justices, the poll found.

I had feared worse numbers, since the Register’s poll was in the field September 19-22, not long after television commercials making the case against retention started running statewide.

Schulte’s article notes,

The retention election could hinge on which side mobilizes the most down-ticket voters. A Register analysis of voting records in the past two non-presidential elections shows that only 60 percent of Iowa voters answered the retention questions for justices and appeals-court judges.

The judges don’t plan to campaign for themselves. Groups backing retention won’t be able to match the advertising budgets of groups on the religious right. I doubt they will reach as many voters as the pastors who plan to preach directly against retaining the judges either.

Ousting three Supreme Court wouldn’t change Iowa’s judicial system right away, but it would give momentum to those who want to replace merit-based selection with a more politicized process. Please remind your friends to fill out the whole ballot and vote yes on the judges up for retention.

The National Rifle Association released its complete list of Iowa endorsements late last week. Though the announcement didn’t receive as much media coverage as the group’s backing for Democratic Governor Chet Culver, announced a few days earlier, I found some of the choices interesting. Like the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the NRA has a policy of endorsing incumbents who have supported the group’s agenda, regardless of party. (In contrast, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation endorsed almost exclusively Republicans this year, passing over many Democrats in the state legislature who have supported that group’s agenda.)

The NRA Iowa endorsements and candidate ratings candidates are here. Some highlights are after the jump.

Exactly one month remains before the November election. Many Iowans have already received phone calls or direct mail promoting or attacking candidates for the state legislature, and those voter contacts will accelerate in the final weeks. Based on what I’ve heard about Republican message-testing phone calls in various Iowa House and Senate districts, Democratic candidates can expect lots of lies or distortions: the so-called “budget deficit” that doesn’t exist, alleged attempts to force workers to join unions, the claim that I-JOBS hasn’t created any jobs, and alleged government spending on “heated sidewalks” that never happened.

I’ll have more on Iowa Republicans’ lies and exaggerations in the coming weeks. I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers to help get the word out by posting diaries here or e-mailing me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) about any deceptive mailings and robocalls you receive.

Meanwhile, it’s imperative that Democratic candidates and allied groups stick to the facts when criticizing Republican opponents. This week Iowa conservative bloggers were enraged over mailers attacking Kent Sorenson, GOP challenger against State Senator Staci Appel in Senate district 37. The seat is one of Republicans’ top targets, and activists in both parties expect a close election. Shane Vander Hart posted two of the mail pieces on the Des Moines Register website. At least one was paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party; I can’t tell from Vander Hart’s photo who paid for the other piece.

The mailers highlight Sorenson’s vote against Senate File 2357, which Governor Chet Culver signed into law this year after it passed with bipartisan support. The bill prohibits “a person who is the subject of a no-contact order or a protective order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing, transferring, or selling firearms and ammunition or offensive weapons.” Sorenson and most other Republicans felt making someone give up their guns because of a no-contact order was taking away a constitutional right “without due process.” It disgusts me when self-styled law and order Republicans care more about domestic abusers’ gun rights than about preventing violent crimes. A large percentage of women who are murdered are killed by male partners or ex-partners who have previously abused or threatened them. Women have to demonstrate a pattern of abuse or harassment in order to get a no-contact order. Criticizing Sorenson for that vote is fair game.

The mailers also mention House File 596, which Sorenson co-sponsored in 2009. This bill would have relaxed concealed weapons permit requirements. Thankfully, it never made it out of subcommittee. The anti-Sorenson mailers claim HF 596 “would allow concealed weapons in bars.” That’s partly true; from my reading of the bill, it looks like only people in certain occupations would be able to carry concealed weapons in bars (a bad idea). The mailers also claim HF 596 “would allow kindergarten teachers to carry concealed weapons in classrooms.” I can’t find anything in the text of the bill to support that claim. Sorenson may be crazy, but even he isn’t that crazy.

Stretching the truth to score political points is not only wrong, but also likely to backfire. Sorenson does hold extreme views on guns. His own supporters cheer his efforts to repeal all handgun permit requirements and eviscerate Iowa’s permitting system in other ways. Unfortunately, sloppy work by whoever produced those direct-mail pieces will allow Sorenson to portray himself as the victim of a smear campaign.

Democrats shouldn’t let Republican attacks go unanswered, but they need to stick to the reality of Republicans’ voting records, public statements and the wacky ideas in the Iowa GOP platform.

Speaking of sloppiness, why does anyone listen to Krusty Konservative? This week he stated definitively that the National Rifle Association had endorsed Appel over Sorenson. The NRA announced a few days later that it was backing Sorenson. Click here to view the rest of the NRA’s Iowa endorsements.

This is an open thread, so feel free to share anything that’s on your mind this weekend.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus confirmed on September 30 that she and her colleagues will not wage a campaign urging Iowans to retain them in office.

Ternus said she and justices David Baker and Michael Streit don’t want to set an example for judges by campaigning and raising money.

“How would you feel, as a litigant, to appear in court and know that the opposing party’s attorney gave money to the judge’s re-election campaign and your attorney didn’t? Is that the kind of system Iowans want? I just hope they think about it. This is way more important than whether any one judge is retained or not,” she said.

I’ve talked to some people who are frustrated the Supreme Court justices aren’t more actively defending themselves and their records. I admire them for honoring the principle that judges should not engage in election-style campaigns, even when their own jobs are on the line.

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is heading a campaign to oust the judges. His Iowa for Freedom organization has massive financial backing from the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been spent on a statewide television commercial and radio advertising urging Iowans to vote no on retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker.

The Justice, Not Politics coalition formed recently to defend the judges and our current judicial system, but they won’t be able to match the conservative groups’ spending against the judges. The Iowa State Bar Association has created Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts, but as a pending 501(c) organization, that group cannot explicitly urge Iowans to vote yes on retaining the Supreme Court justices.

Please remind your friends and relatives to turn the ballot over and vote yes on retaining the judges listed. All of them “are well qualified to remain as judges” according to the Iowa State Bar Association’s survey of Iowa attorneys. Survey results were released on October 1. All 74 judges up for retention this year received “high marks” for “professionalism and demeanor” on the bench. The Des Moines Register listed the bar association’s survey results for the three Supreme Court justices and all Polk County judges on the ballot.

All judges had more than 70 percent support from the attorneys, but Ternus’ retention rating (72 percent) was lower than the ratings for Streit and Baker. In general, women judges receive lower retention ratings from the legal community than men on the bench. Ternus also made the news in the summer of 2009 when seven 19-year-olds, including her son, were arrested for drinking at a party outside her home. Her husband was charged with interference with official acts as Polk County sheriff’s deputies broke up that party, but the charge was later amended to harassment of a public official.

UPDATE: Saturday’s Des Moines Register offered another possible explanation for Ternus’ slightly lower rating:

But the vote also follows a tight budget year for the courts. Ternus, who issues administrative orders as part of her duties, required clerk-of-court offices to reduce their public hours, and imposed courthouse closure days as a cost-cutting measure. Some court reporters were laid off.

“The chief justice is the person who addresses issues such as dealing with court’s budget, or administrative issues in the court,” Knutson said. “Certainly, she had to be the public face on some of those hard decisions.”

Iowa Republicans have nominated some candidates who are remarkably ill-suited for the jobs they are seeking. There’s secretary of state nominee Matt Schultz, who doesn’t know how voter rolls are maintained, uses unfounded fraud allegations to get attention, and thinks a focus on job creation means the secretary of state should get involved in legislative battles over tax and labor bills.

There are incumbents like State Representatives Jason Schultz and Dwayne Alons, whose oddball ideas Bleeding Heartland has covered before.

But this story in the Carroll Daily Times-Herald suggests that Dan Dirkx, Republican candidate in Iowa House district 51, sets the gold standard for ignorance.  

At about 4:00 pm today a woman from Lawrence Research called with a survey on the upcoming elections. As always when I receive a political phone call, I didn’t hang up and took as many notes as possible on the poll. Judging from the question wordings, this was a message-testing survey commissioned by a group trying to oust the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who will be on the ballot this November.

The Lawrence Research polling firm is run by Gary Lawrence, who was active in California’s Prop 8 campaign against same-sex marriage. His firm recently conducted a poll purporting to show that Minnesotans want a governor who opposes same-sex marriage rights. The Minnesota Family Council and National Organization for Marriage publicized that poll.

I assume the American Family Association and/or the National Organization for Marriage commissioned the poll for which I was a respondent today. Those groups are lavishly funding the “Iowa for Freedom” effort to oust the judges. Television commercials urging a no vote on retention began running statewide two and a half weeks ago.

If this poll shows that Iowans are poised to vote no on retaining the Supreme Court justices, whoever commissioned it will probably announce the results. I’ll assume the numbers were good for the judges if I don’t see an Iowa for Freedom press release about the poll in the coming weeks.

After the jump I’ve posted as many details as I could about the survey questions.

Speaking of the retention elections, get a load of this brazen recruiting effort by a Sioux City church: “Pastors who join this effort are asked to commit to confront the injustice and ungodly decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court by boldly calling upon their flocks to ‘vote no on judicial retention’ for the three consecutive Sundays prior to Election Day.”  

Iowa finished fiscal year 2010 on June 30 with an ending balance of $335.6 million and $419 million in various reserve accounts, the Iowa Department of Management reported yesterday. Remarkably, the surplus is the second-largest in the last 10 years despite the weak national economic recovery of the past year.

It’s been clear since July that the ending balance would exceed the $100 million projected when the legislature adopted the 2010 budget. Revenues during the second half of the fiscal year came in higher than expected.

Republicans have been lying about Iowa’s so-called “budget deficit” all year. During the past three months, gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad has continued to accuse Governor Chet Culver of spending too much, and GOP candidates for many other offices have joined in the chorus about allegedly “out of control” spending.

Don’t expect Republicans to apologize for their demagoguery. Instead of acknowledging our state’s fiscal health, Iowa House Republicans put out a statement today fanning fears about a huge Medicaid funding shortfall in fiscal year 2012 (that’s the year that begins on July 1, 2011).

Kathie Obradovich’s take on today’s news at the Des Moines Register blog was stunning as well. Instead of pointing out that the final budget numbers disprove statements Branstad has been making all year, she chided Culver for “name-calling” against his Republican opponent. Why doesn’t she ask Branstad to show how he would balance the budget without accepting federal fiscal aid or dipping into reserve funds, while keeping his promise to reduce the size of state government by 15 percent over five years? We’ve seen no budget details from Branstad, and his plans to cut corporate taxes while having the state take on more responsibility for funding mental health and education services simply don’t add up.

More details on the final state budget numbers for fiscal year 2010 are after the jump, along with ending balances for each of the last ten fiscal years.

UPDATE: Iowa House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen still claims Culver “has a history of reckless and irresponsible budgeting” and accuses him of forcing a $500 million property tax increase. That Republican talking point has been debunked before. Paulsen asserts that Culver has “left a budget shortfall of over $1 billion for next year, including $600 million in Medicaid.” Again, that refers to fiscal year 2012. The Iowa legislature will take account of updated revenue and expense projects when drafting next year’s budget during the 2011 legislative session, just like legislators adjusted spending plans during this year’s session to keep the 2011 budget balanced.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has run a low-key campaign for re-election so far this year. Democratic challenger Francis Thicke has faulted Northey for not doing enough to ensure food safety, proposed stronger regulations for Iowa egg producers and an energy policy that would increase farm incomes. I expected Northey to respond by telling voters how he has protected the food supply or helped farmers improve their bottom lines.

Instead, Northey’s opening television commercials have spread the usual Republican lies about Iowa’s “budget deficit” in order to depict Northey as a leader in keeping down his department’s exPenses.

UPDATE: Northey is also distorting Thicke’s stance on ethanol plants in Iowa. For more, scroll to the bottom of this post.

SECOND UPDATE: Another central claim from Northey’s ads turns out to be false. As Thicke points out in the comments, Northey didn’t “work with the legislature” to reduce his department’s budget.

President Barack Obama is discussing the economy this morning at a private home in Des Moines. Governor Chet Culver and several other elected Democrats are there, but the president isn’t doing any campaign rallies in Iowa like his appearance in Wisconsin yesterday.

The latest Des Moines Register statewide poll by Selzer and Co showed just 45 percent of all Iowa respondents approve of Obama’s performance, while 50 percent disapprove. Among the “likely voters” subset, Obama’s approval is 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

Last night Obama tried to fire up a group of Democratic activists about this year’s election. Maybe Democrats would be more enthusiastic about voting and volunteering if the president had delivered on more of his campaign promises and implemented better economic policies. That’s a topic for another post.

I’ll update this post later with links on today’s event on the economy. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about Obama or his impact on the Iowa elections in this thread.

LATE UPDATE: The group of people invited for Obama’s backyard visit wasn’t representative of Iowans struggling in today’s economy. He spent a lot of time criticizing Republican ideology on tax cuts, mostly with accurate facts and figures. But I just don’t find Obama’s economic message credible. He seemed afraid to face the people hurt the most by the recession, and he won’t acknowledge or correct his administration’s inadequate response to the housing crisis and continuing high unemployment. Where is the president’s plan to help the “99ers,” people who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits but still can’t find work? Why did he reappoint a Federal Reserve chairman who won’t do much to attack the unemployment problem? Heads should have rolled at Treasury for designing a foreclosure response program primarily to benefit banks rather than Americans who are underwater on their mortgages. (See David Dayen’s “Portrait of HAMP failure” series at Firedoglake.)

Obama’s backyard event succeeded at what may have been its primary aim–generating positive vibes with Iowa journalists like Kathie Obradovich. She somehow concluded the staged performance helped “Obama reconnect with Iowa” by allowing “the president to interact with people in a way he never could in a huge venue.” Oh, and we’re supposed to be impressed he got a couple of semi-critical questions during the Potemkin visit.

Iowa’s first Congressional district race was long assumed to be safely in the Democratic column. Two-term incumbent Bruce Braley won by a 25-point margin in 2008, outperforming President Barack Obama in the district. No well-known Republican stepped forward to challenge Braley in 2010, and as of July, the incumbent had more than six times as much cash on hand as Ben Lange, the little-known attorney from Independence who won the Republican primary.

Lange’s campaign has produced some web videos with a generic message: Braley increased the national debt, voted for bailouts, “Obamacare,” the “failed stimulus,” and supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 98 percent of the time.

Lange’s website and web advertising portray the national debt as a huge threat to our national security. But the former Congressional staffer to a Minnesota Republican seems to have little grasp of the federal budget. He wants to replace our current income tax structure with two tax brackets: everyone making less than $125,000 per year would pay 10 percent in income taxes, while everyone over that threshold would pay 25 percent. I would love to see the Congressional Budget Office estimate on how much that plan would add to the deficit over 10 years. I couldn’t find any details on Lange’s website about spending he would cut to pay for his tax plan while balancing the budget. He has asserted (wrongly) that “unspent bank bailout and stimulus funds, as well as a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases,” would cover the $3.7 trillion it would cost over 10 years to extend all of George W. Bush’s tax cuts and fix the alternative minimum tax. He claims (wrongly) that the health insurance reform bill didn’t address the Medicare reimbursement formula.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that Lange doesn’t seem ready for prime time. Nor can he afford much of what would raise his name recognition in the district, such as direct mail, radio and television advertising.

Lange has something most unheralded Congressional challengers don’t have, however: a 501(c)4 group willing to spend roughly a million dollars on his behalf. The American Future Fund began television advertising against Braley last month and has reserved another $800,000 in advertising time before the November election. The group has also paid for robocalls and direct mail to district voters, attacking Braley’s record. Last week the American Future Fund’s PAC formally endorsed Lange, gave his campaign $5,000, and launched a 60-second radio ad hitting Braley on the usual Republican talking points (read the ad script here).

Unsolicited advice for Lange: when you’re benefiting from a million dollars in outside spending by people who won’t say where they get their money, it’s not wise to accuse your opponent of taking too many campaign donations from outside the district.

Braley didn’t fundraise heavily during the first half of the year, probably assuming he didn’t have a serious challenger. He now faces the prospect of being outspent between Labor Day and election day. Without the American Future Fund in this race, it would probably be sufficient for Braley to run a standard incumbent campaign with positive advertising. He could tout the more popular elements of financial reform, consumer credit card protections, health insurance reform and federal fiscal aid to Iowa. Braley was a key architect of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, which stimulated hundreds of thousands of new car sales last year. He also was a leading advocate of the “plain language” bill the House has passed twice, which finally got Senate approval on September 27.

Now Braley has to balance defending his own record with responding to the American Future Fund’s attack ads. Lange can sit back and be the generic Republican on the ballot.

In recent weeks, Braley has tried to taint Lange by association with the American Future Fund, which doesn’t disclose its donors and has a sleazy ad consultant. Braley’s campaign has also accused Lange of illegally coordinating campaign activities with the 501(c)4 group. I don’t know how they could prove that, because Republican candidates around the country are using the same kind of rhetoric we’ve heard from Lange. It’s not as if the American Future Fund came up with a unique set of talking points against Braley.

I haven’t seen any internal polling on this race, so I don’t know whether Lange is in striking distance. A poll commissioned by the American Future Fund found Braley ahead of Lange by 50 percent to 39 percent, and by 47.1 percent to 42.7 percent among the most likely voters. I also don’t know the margin by which Democratic Governor Chet Culver and U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin are trailing their opponents in the first Congressional district; that would affect Braley’s prospects too.

Share any thoughts on the IA-01 race in this thread.

UPDATE: The American Future Fund’s latest television commercial against Braley is after the jump.

Monday was role reversal day in the Iowa governor’s race, with the National Rifle Association endorsing Democratic incumbent Chet Culver as a union group backed Republican challenger Terry Branstad.

The candidates’ rival job creation proposals also made news during the past week. Branstad’s plan looks like a cover for letting business interests gut almost any regulation they dislike.

More on those stories, along with Culver’s latest television commercial, are after the jump.

UPDATE: The Culver campaign announced the Teamsters Union endorsement on September 28. Details are below.

More than 30 organization and several dozen “community leaders” have formed a new coalition called Justice, Not Politics. Former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning (a Republican) and Sally Pederson (a Democrat) are co-chairing the coalition, which will counter the well-funded campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention this year. Pederson and Corning spoke to Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson on September 27:

Pederson charges that Iowa for Freedom – the group now headed by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats – is trying to “hijack” the courts and using a quarter of a million dollars in out-of-state money to do it. “There is no Iowa for Freedom organization that you can write a check to. It is a project of the American Family Association out of Tupelo, Mississippi, and they don’t have the interests of Iowans at heart. They have their own agenda,” Pederson says. “The American Family Association is really a extremely outrageous, you know, right-wing group.”

The leaders of Iowa For Freedom say they’ll continue to educate Iowans about their right to “hold the court accountable” for the gay marriage ruling and they accuse Pederson and Corning of “scare tactics.”

Corning says judges shouldn’t be subjected to “political retribution” and Corning argues the three justices up for a retention vote this fall have met the right standard by showing an ability to uphold the law “fairly and consistently.”

“There is much work to be done to fight extremists who want to insert their narrow special interests into the one branch of government that should be free from politics,” Corning says.

Click here to view a list of Justice, Not Politics supporters. Many churches and religious organizations have signed on, and lots of the “community leaders” are clergy. I am not aware of any current Republican elected official or candidate who has spoken out for retaining the justices, but in addition to Corning, two other prominent former Republican politicians have joined the effort: Ambassador and former Iowa Senate President Mary Kramer, and former State Senator Maggie Tinsman.

Iowa’s judicial system is one of the finest in the country. Iowa’s merit selection and retention process keeps politics and campaign money out of our courts, safeguarding its fairness and impartiality. To keep it that way, Iowans from all political spectrums should resist efforts by one extremist group from Mississippi who are funding an effort to politicize our courts. If politics and campaign money are allowed into the courts, justice will be for sale.

Why a Coalition?

Groups from across the state are working together to counter the effort of extremists from hijacking Iowa’s courts. Justice, Not Politics is a broad based, nonpartisan coalition of organizations and Iowans across the political spectrum —- progressive to conservative; Republicans, Independents and Democrats —- all who are committed to protecting Iowa’s courts and our system of merit selection and retention.

The Iowa State Bar Association created Iowans for Fair & Impartial Courts earlier this year, but that pending 501(c)3 group cannot engage in direct political advocacy. Iowans for Fair & Impartial Courts has raised money for a public education campaign about the benefits of Iowa’s merit selection system for judges, but it cannot explicitly urge citizens to vote yes on retaining the Supreme Court justices.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad has tried to remain neutral on this issue, stating that “people should vote their conscience” on the judges. But as three law school deans wrote in this guest editorial for the Des Moines Register, the retention elections were not intended to be referenda on specific court rulings:

The merit selection process includes periodic votes on judges. Every eight years each member of the Supreme Court appears on the ballot with the simple question: Should this individual be retained for another term in office? The retention vote was designed for a very limited purpose, to provide a mechanism to remove a judge who was unfit for office, for example, because of corruption such as bribery, other unlawful conduct, or misconduct.

Those seeking to remove the three Supreme Court justices fail to recognize the substantial harm they will do to Iowa’s judicial system if they succeed. It would do serious harm to the rule of law in Iowa and the fair and impartial administration of justice if judges are removed from office through campaigns of political opponents because of the results reached in particular cases. It would be an open invitation to well-funded interests to band together and retaliate against judges. Inevitably, decisions would appear to be influenced by politics and ideology, not by the law and evidence in a case.

The three justices under attack have a record of integrity, competency and distinguished public service, and a “yes” vote on their retention is merited by the facts.

Senator Chuck Grassley has a solid lead over Democrat Roxanne Conlin in the latest Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register. Among 550 likely voters Selzer and Co surveyed between September 19 and 22, 61 percent said they would vote for Grassley and just 30 percent for Conlin if the election were held today.  

More details from the poll, along with Grassley’s latest television commercials and other news from the race, can be found after the jump.

UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom for videos and transcripts of two new ads Grassley’s campaign released on September 27.

SEPTEMBER 28 UPDATE: The latest Iowa Senate poll by Republican pollster Rasmussen sees Grassley well ahead of Conlin, but by a 55 percent to 37 percent margin.

The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa poll shows Republican Terry Branstad leading Governor Chet Culver by 52 percent to 33 percent among likely voters. Selzer and Co surveyed 803 Iowa adults, of whom 550 were classified as likely Iowa voters, between September 19 and 22. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.2 percent.

I expected Branstad’s numbers to drop somewhat following the Republican primary, but his margin over Culver is almost exactly the same as the Register found the last time it polled this matchup in February. At that time Branstad led Culver 53-33, and Culver’s approval rating was 36 percent.

The new Selzer poll has no good news for Culver. His approval rating is 35 percent. Not only is Branstad polling above 50 percent, he leads “with voters from communities of all sizes, in all congressional districts and from all age groups and income levels.” No-party voters support Branstad by a 46 percent to 27 percent margin.

Culver’s campaign issued this statement on September 25:

“We believe that this poll serves as wake up call to Iowa voters,” said Governor Culver’s campaign manager, Donn Stanley. “When all is said and done, we believe that Iowans will ultimately choose Chet Culver, a leader who stands for Iowa values.

“The fact is,” Stanley continued, “all one has to do is look back as recently as Tom Vilsack’s race against Jim Ross Lightfoot in 1998 to see that this poll is not a harbinger of things to come. At this point in the race, Tom Vilsack was down a full 20 points in the Iowa Poll. I’m sure Governor Lightfoot would be happy to tell you the degree to which the Iowa Poll predicts the outcome of the race.”

That’s true, but Vilsack was not an incumbent with low approval ratings in a tough economy. Only 59 percent of likely voters said their minds were “firmly made up,” but I don’t know how Culver can convince the other 41 percent to give him another chance. It’s not as if no one ever heard of Branstad’s shortcomings:

Overall, 53 percent of likely voters say the candidate they are supporting is someone they can most easily tolerate, while only 36 percent say he is the best person for the job.

I hope the Culver campaign has budgeted well enough to stay up on television from now through election day. I doubt the Democratic Governors Association will spend any more money in Iowa this year.

UPDATE: More findings from the Register’s new poll are after the jump.