When Governor Chet Culver took final action on the last two dozen bills from the 2009 legislative session, my biggest disappointment was his decision to sign Senate File 433, a bill that “eliminates a broad range of fines against Iowa nursing homes that fail to meet minimum health and safety standards.”

Governors rarely veto bills that pass out of the state legislature unanimously, as this one did. However, when Culver didn’t sign Senate File 433 right away, I hoped he was seriously considering the advice of the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs and the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. Both of those state agencies opposed the bill.

Instead of listening to the public officials who have the most in-depth knowledge of nursing home regulations and violations, Culver sided with a corporate interest group:

Former state legislator John Tapscott, who now advocates for Iowa seniors, said the new law is an example of what the nursing home industry can buy with its campaign contributions.

“It only proves that our legislative leaders and governor are willing to sell out the most vulnerable of our citizens – the sick and elderly residing in nursing homes – for a few thousand campaign dollars,” he said.

Click “there’s more” to read about the substance of this bill and the winning strategy of the Iowa Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes. I couldn’t have written this post without an outstanding series of reports by Clark Kauffman of the Des Moines Register last November (see also here and here).

A story in the Sunday Des Moines Register got me thinking about how money affects what happens and doesn’t happen in the Iowa House and Senate. The gist of the article is that many interest groups are providing free food and drink to legislators without properly disclosing how much they spend on these events.

State officials concede the disclosure law is not enforced. Senate Ethics Committee Vice Chairman Dick Dearden, D-Des Moines, said he does not recall any organization ever being punished for not filing reception disclosures properly.

“I don’t know if anyone ever checks them,” Dearden said. […]

Filings from groups that complied with the law show interest groups have spent $187,000 this year to arrange at least 66 events. That is about 4 percent less than was spent during last year’s legislative session and 15 percent less than in 2007.

Reported spending on the legislative parties peaked at $264,000 in 2005, when the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board oversaw the disclosures.

Enforcement has since shifted to the House and Senate ethics committees, and reported spending has declined each year since. […]

Tracking exactly which or how many organizations filed their reports properly is difficult because there is no master list of receptions and no state officials are charged with verifying the filings.

[Charlie] Smithson [executive director of the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board] said groups were never punished for failing to file when his board oversaw the disclosures, but his staff reviewed the Legislature’s social calendar regularly and reminded groups to send proper documents.

It’s not encouraging to learn that no one is enforcing our disclosure rules. I know legislative receptions are probably not the most important way to buy political influence, but someone should be making groups comply with the rules.

After the jump I briefly examine a few of the ways an interest group with an agenda and a pile of cash could use that money. There’s also a poll at the end–please vote!

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

Iowa voters handed Democrats the keys to run the state in 2006 and expanded the Democratic majority in the legislature this year. Now we have to prove that we are capable of governing well. Like almost every other state, Iowa is facing a deteriorating revenue base while demands for government services rise in a tough economy. Governor Chet Culver has already imposed two rounds of budget cuts, and more difficult choices will need to be made during the upcoming legislative session.

There is no perfect solution to the budget problem, but some proposals are so bad that they should be ruled out immediately.

Selling the Iowa Lottery is a terrible idea on every level.

I don’t often agree with Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, but he is right about this:

Why would anyone want to sell their seed corn? And why would Iowa want to do something that may lead to expanded gambling? […]

We should privatize those governmental functions that cost the taxpayers, not the ones that make them a profit. […]

Since 1985, the Iowa lottery has netted state government $1 billion. Why would we turn some of those profits over to the gambling industry? It’s short-term thinking to give up $50 million in annual lottery profits for a lump sum now.

Also, this idea breaks faith with the promise made to Iowans when we started down the path of expanded gambling: If Iowa was going to get into legalized gambling, it was going to be heavily regulated.

Now we’re going to invite casino owners and others in the gambling industry to run our lottery? I’m sorry; the history of the gaming industry is just too checkered to put people from it in charge.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and I hate to see the state encouraging people to throw their money away on the lottery. But now that Iowa has a lottery, we should keep the profits in state hands. Selling the lottery would bring in cash this year, but we’d need to replace the lost revenue in future budgets. It wouldn’t solve the problem, and it would make Democrats look incompetent.

By the way, State Auditor David Vaudt described the idea as “a very short-term Band-Aid approach.” The plan he described would involve

a lease of the lottery for up to 50 years in exchange for a lump sum payment of $200 million and some annual lease fee.

The lottery generates more than $50 million a year in profits for the state’s budget, and Vaudt predicted the lump sum would quickly evaporate.

Of course it would.

Vaudt may be the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, and he was warning about budget problems long before Culver and the Democratic leadership in the legislature started talking about budget cuts. Do we want to hand him another talking point on Democrats’ alleged fiscal irresponsibility?

If selling the lottery is bad policy and bad politics, why would anyone consider it? Here is Yepsen’s theory:

[T]he fact that Culver is entertaining sale of the lottery is an example of how big gambling money and influence slosh around Iowa politics.

The delegation that called on him to promote the idea included former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is a longtime friend, adviser and donor of Culver’s, and Jeff Link, a leading Democratic campaign strategist who also runs referenda campaigns for gambling interests.

Culver will need to show how selling the lottery is a good deal for taxpayers and not just his cronies and campaign contributors on the gambling industry’s payroll. Watch to see how much gambling money starts showing up in Culver’s re-election warchest – and in those of Democratic legislative leaders.

Democrats helped gambling interests last session by putting an unjustified exemption for casino floors into the smoking ban bill. If we care about workers’ health, why should casino employees be less protected than those who work in restaurants and bars?

Handing over the lottery would play right into Republican talking points about “special interests” controlling the Democratic Party.

Culver, House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal should nip this speculation in the bud by ruling out any plan to sell the lottery for short-term gain.

What else, if anything, should be “off the table” in the context of balancing the budget? I agree with Culver that going into debt should be considered.

I also believe that shared sacrifice requires some kind of action on the revenue side, such as closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the well-off. When middle-income and lower-income Iowans bear the brunt of cuts in services, wealthier Iowans should also be asked to help bring the budget into balance. Some economists have shown that during an economic downturn, raising taxes on the wealthy does less harm to the economy than cutting government spending.

I understand the political arguments against raising taxes in any form now. There will be plenty of time to debate that later. For now, Democrat leaders should make the easy call: keep the Iowa Lottery in state hands.

When Governor Chet Culver scheduled a $5,000 a head fundraiser in Des Moines, he probably didn’t expect the event to fall on the same day he announced about $100 million in “painful” budget cuts.

Trust me, Bleeding Heartland’s resident troll won’t be the only one to use this convergence to push Republican talking points about Democrats no longer being the party of working people.

Last week Iowa legislative leaders appeared at a forum organized by Iowa Politics, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy characterized the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections bill as “flat-out bad”:

It would cause taxpayer money to rain down in districts where candidates typically spend far less on campaigns, and would cause corporations to control the parties, he said. Meaningful reform should come from federal lawmakers clamping down on political committees such as 501(c)4 groups that can raise unlimited money and use it to influence campaigns, he said.

Sure, because it doesn’t look “flat-out bad” for Democrats to schedule high-priced fundraisers while most families are tightening their belts.

Of course, the real problem with our current system of funding politicians isn’t the lousy optics, it’s how narrow interests are able to push through bad bills or block legislation that is in the public interest and has broad bipartisan support.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement gave a few other reasons why McCarthy is “flat-out wrong”:

McCarthy also claimed that under VOICE, corporations would “control the parties” through their contributions. Currently, corporate contributions to candidates are prohibited in Iowa, and would remain banned under VOICE. However, Iowa is one of only 13 states that have no limit on what any one individual can contribute to a candidate for public office.

In fact, McCarthy took a total of $90,000 in contributions from five individuals from out of state in 2008, and all the reports aren’t even in yet. And, $351,815 of his $652,205 came directly from Political Action Committees (PACs) representing special interests. States that have systems for publicly financed elections similar to VOICE, like Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut, have not seen an influx in 527 or PAC activity trying to influence elections. Rather, more candidates are running for office, including women and minorities. And, although these kinds of groups are already here in Iowa, CCI and other organizations last year worked for and passed legislation to force 527s to report their in-state activities. This has allowed the public to see who is contributing to organizations that try to influence our public elections.

McCarthy also claimed that VOICE would cause candidates to become lazy, “Which is absurd,” said CCI member Alice Bryan of Des Moines. “VOICE candidates will actually have to work harder, going door to door meeting constituents, rather than dialing for dollars and relying on slick mailers and TV ads. A VOICE candidate who agrees to limit their spending would truly represent their constituents, not the special interests that fund campaigns.”

Public Campaign has created an online petition you can sign if you want to tell McCarthy that “VOICE would make elections in Iowa about voters and not campaign donors.”

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement has scheduled a Rally and Lobby Day for January 27, 2009,

to kick off the legislative session and push for VOICE, local control of factory farms, keeping families in their homes and protecting the rights of all workers.

If you care about this issue, mark your calendar.

UPDATE: Ed Fallon published an op-ed piece in Friday’s Des Moines Register called Illinois seat not only thing that’s for sale:

Blagojevich is a menace and needs to go to the gated community where other Illinois governors before him have gone. But America’s campaign-finance system is a far greater menace to democracy. If we can muster shock and disgust for Blagojevich, we should be utterly appalled at the pervasive role of money in politics.

Face it. What we call “elections” have become auctions. The auctioning of U.S. Senate seats occurs every six years – every two years for congressional and state legislative seats. Big donors, corporations and special interests “bid” on the candidate of their choice. In close races, the smart money bids on both candidates, and the one backed by the highest bidders usually wins.

We don’t want to believe our elected officials can be bought. But as someone who served for 14 years in the Iowa House, I say with confidence that what big money wants, big money usually gets. Rank-and-file lawmakers may be well-intentioned but often are strong-armed by legislative leaders beholden to corporate donors and special interests. As a result, the most pressing challenges of our time – climate change, budgetary reform, health care, farm policy, to name a few – see practically no progress year after year.

So, while I hope the good people of Illinois fire Blagojevich and fire him soon, I have a more pressing hope that Americans across the country get fired up for campaign-finance reform. In Iowa, Senator-elect Pam Jochum is leading the charge on VOICE (Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections). This bill would make it easier for rank-and-file lawmakers to stand up to party leaders, allow more citizens to run for office and give the public far greater access to the halls of power.

Swing State Project has posted a useful map and chart showing poll closing times and key races across the country.

Also, Swing State Project has maintained an incredible independent expenditure tracking chart so you can see how much various interest groups have been spending on the Congressional races, and in which districts. I noticed that EMILY’s List has not been spending in many of the districts where they endorsed a candidate.

Fivethirtyeight.com runs 10,000 presidential election scenarios every day. On Sunday, they came up with 624 McCain victories out of 10,000. Nate Silver shows you the most likely McCain victory maps in “What a McCain Win Looks Like.”

Daily Kos is running its first election prediction contest, and you have until 3 am central time on Tuesday to enter. It’s better than Bleeding Heartland’s contest in that they ask fewer questions and are giving the winner a brand new 2.0GHz Apple MacBook.

On the other hand, you have to have been a registered Daily Kos user for a least a week to participate, and your chances of winning are a lot better here. They will probably have thousands of entries at Daily Kos, and you have to guess the national popular vote percentages within a tenth of a point.

What websites are you reading, and where will you be watching the election returns come in?

The Des Moines-based American Future Fund is exploiting loopholes in rules governing political advocacy groups in order to run campaign advertising in targeted races without disclosing its donors.

The Des Moines Register provided the latest evidence in this article from Saturday’s edition: “National group airs ads on Iowa House.”

For background on the American Future Fund, a 510(c)4 organization “formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint,” you can read this piece by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, this TPM Cafe story by Mrs. Panstreppon, or Paul Kiel’s report for TPM Muckraker.

The American Future Fund is associated with heavy-hitters in the field of campaign advertising. Its media consultant is Larry McCarthy (creator of the 1988 Willie Horton ad), and its legal consultant is Ben Ginsberg (who was involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004).

Representatives for the American Future Fund deny that the group seeks to influence elections. For that reason, they are not subject to campaign disclosure rules governing political action committees and other groups that make independent expenditures during election campaigns.

However, the American Future Fund’s radio and television commercials this year have focused on candidates running in competitive Senate races, such as Republican incumbent Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Democratic candidate Mark Udall of Colorado, and Democratic candidate Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. You can view many of those ads at the AFF’s You Tube channel. Note that while these commercials ostensibly are focused on generating phone calls in support of a particular issue position, they haven’t been aired in states without a contested Senate seat.

Now the AFF is weighing in on key Iowa legislative races. From yesterday’s story in the Des Moines Register:

On Wednesday [October 29], AFF launched television ads in Iowa that criticize Democratic Reps. McKinley Bailey of Webster City, Paul Shomshor of Council Bluffs, Elesha Gayman of Davenport and Art Staed of Cedar Rapids. All four are incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in the face of strong Republican challengers.

Other ads that compliment Republican Reps. Doug Struyk of Council Bluffs, Jamie Van Fossen of Davenport and Dan Rasmussen of Independence. Struyk is a Republican leader whose opponent has spent little; the other two are dealing with strong Democratic challengers.

AFF’s spokesman explained the timing of the political messages by saying it took months to compile analysis on the legislative session, which ended in April.

What an amazing coincidence. Analysis about legislative action completed more than six months ago resulted in television ads that appeared six days before a general election.

In another amazing coincidence, the AFF’s ads happen to focus on candidates running in six battleground districts being targeted by both parties. Dozens of legislators who voted the same way on those issues, but represent uncompetitive districts, are not subject to AFF’s advertising blitz.

I could only find two of the American Future Fund Iowa’s tv ads on You Tube. One praised the Republican incumbent in Iowa House district 81, Jamie Van Fossen, and the other criticized the Democratic incumbent in House district 9, McKinley Bailey.

It’s worth noting that while urging viewers to call legislators, these ads give the phone number for the switchboard at the State Capitol. However, the switchboard is currently closed, because the legislature is not in session. The AFF spokesman explained that the law requires advertisements to use official phone numbers, but he is evading the issue.

These commercials cannot be intended to generate citizen communication with legislators if they are giving a phone number that no one is currently answering.

Clearly the AFF selected the subjects and timing of their advertising in order to influence the outcome of legislative elections in Iowa. (The Republican Party of Iowa is concentrating its resources on making gains in the Iowa House, where Democrats have only a 53-47 majority.)

The tv ads direct viewers to the web site of the AFF’s Iowa chapter: www.iowa.americanfuturefund.com.

AFF spokesman Tim Albrecht

told The Des Moines Register last month that AFF is a group that focuses solely on national issues. “At that time we were, but after a lot of analysis and reviewing what had occurred in the last legislative session, we decided to open an Iowa chapter,” he said.

It is AFF’s first state-based chapter in the country, said Albrecht, who is a former spokesman for Iowa Republican legislative leader Christopher Rants and AFF’s only paid staff member.

Earlier this year, the Iowa Future Fund was incorporated by the same people behind the American Future Fund, and the Iowa Future Fund ran television ads criticizing Democratic Governor Chet Culver. (Here is one of the Iowa Future Fund’s ads against Culver.) In March, the Iowa Democratic Party called for an investigation into the Iowa Future Fund’s advertising campaign and failure to disclose donors. In April, a press release announced the creation of the Iowa Progress Project to replace the Iowa Future Fund. In theory, the the Iowa Progress Project was going to focus on state issues, while the American Future Fund focused on national issues.

It is unclear why the American Future Fund decided to create an Iowa chapter, rather than have the Iowa Progress Project pay for television commercials about Iowa House incumbents. If anyone has any information regarding the Iowa Progress Project or the decision to create an AFF Iowa chapter, please post a comment or send me a confidential e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Can anything be done to force the AFF to disclose who is paying for these commercials? Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, told the Des Moines Register that his office had received a complaint about the ads, but that campaign disclosure laws do not apply because the AFF ads do not urge viewers to vote for a candidate.

Mr. desmoinesdem has extensively researched election law and tells me that one relevant case in this area is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life was running ads urging people to contact their senators about judicial filibusters. Senator Russ Feingold was up for re-election, and the ads did not urge people to vote against him, but the FEC considered them “sham issue ads” that were intended to influence an election and therefore were subject to regulation by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold).

The Supreme Court had previously upheld McCain-Feingold’s provisions on political advocacy ads (in the McConnell vs. FEC case), so the key question was whether Wisconsin Right to Life’s ads were the kind of political advocacy Congress can regulate. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, the court

held that McConnell v. FEC did not establish the test that any ad intended to influence an election and having that effect is express advocacy. Such a test would be open-ended and burdensome, would lead to bizarre results, and would “unquestionably chill a substantial amount of political speech.” Instead, the Court adopted the test that “an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” The Court further held that the compelling state interests invoked by the government to regulate advocacy did not apply with equal force to genuine issue ads. Neither the interest in preventing corruption nor the goal of limiting the distorting effects of corporate wealth was sufficient to override the right of a corporation to speak through ads on public issues. This conclusion, the Court held, was necessary in order to “give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.” The dissent by Justice Souter called WRTL’s ads indistinguishable from political advocacy ads and accused the majority of implicitly overruling McConnell v. FEC.

I agree with Souter’s position that so-called issue ads targeting candidates in key races shortly before elections are really political advocacy ads subject to McCain-Feingold. If the American Future Fund were mainly trying to influence Iowans’ views on issues, they wouldn’t be running their commercials only in battleground districts. Also, the timing of the ads only makes sense in the context of this Tuesday’s election. As I mentioned above, no one is currently answering the phone number AFF asks viewers to call.

But Smithson has to look at the AFF’s Iowa advertising from a narrow legal perspective. Clearly the ads are promoting favorable opinions about some Republican incumbents and unfavorable opinions about some Democratic incumbents. But as long as the ads urge people to call a telephone number (even a non-working one), courts would probably not hold that the commercials have “no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”

I am not an expert on election law or disclosure requirements for 501(c)4 organizations. Perhaps there is some way Congress could require more financial disclosure of 501(c)4s so that they would not be able to run campaign ads with no accountability.

I don’t know the solution, but I do know that we can help Democrats fight back against the American Future Fund’s ad campaign by giving to the Iowa House Democrats’ Truman fund or to the following individual candidates:

McKinley Bailey (incumbent in House district 9)

Art Staed (incumbent in House district 37)

Elesha Gayman (incumbent in House district 84)

Paul Shomshor (incumbent in House district 100)

Phyllis Thede (challenger in House district 81)

Gene Ficken (challenger in House district 23)

Congressional candidates’ third-quarter campaign finance reports were due today (October 15), so I went over to the Federal Election Commission site to see how things stand.

For some reason, I was unable to find reports for Senator Tom Harkin or his opponent, Christopher Reed. I will cover their FEC filings in a separate post when data become available. UPDATE: The National Journal’s Hotline blog published the basic information from all Senate candidates’ FEC filings.

Tom Harkin had total receipts of $635,915 during 3Q, spent $495,136, and had $3,956,998 cash on hand as of September 30.

Christopher Reed had total receipts of $34,956 during 3Q, spent $13,156, and had $22,092 cash on hand left.

All of the incumbents have large cash-on-hand advantages over their opponents going into the final stretch of the campaign.

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: $25,000 in July and another $50,000 at the end of August.

I could not find any donations from Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) to the DCCC. I hope someone from his staff will correct me if I am wrong. He certainly can afford to donate to the DCCC, running in a D+7 district in what looks like a very strong year for Iowa Democrats. On the other hand, the DCCC did nothing to help him two years ago when he was running against Jim Leach, so maybe he is less inclined to support the committee’s efforts.

I also could not find any record of donations from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) to the DCCC. Again, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But if this is correct, it’s a disgrace for Boswell. The DCCC has spent heavily on Boswell’s behalf in several previous election cycles. The least he could do would be to help them support other Democratic candidates.

Iowa’s two Democratic challengers had very strong fundraising quarters. Becky Greenwald out-raised Tom Latham during the reporting period, which is phenomenal. However, she spent more than she raised, leaving her with relatively little cash on hand. The DCCC has added her to its Red to Blue list, so she presumably will be getting some help from them as well as from EMILY’s list, which endorsed her last month. She will need that help in order to stay on tv for the remainder of the campaign.

Considering that the fifth district is not widely acknowledged to be up for grabs, Rob Hubler’s haul for the quarter is impressive. No wonder the DCCC put him on the Emerging Races list. He went up on the radio last week and presumably will be able to stay on the radio for the duration of the campaign. It’s not clear whether he will have enough money for tv ads before election day. Steve King just went up on tv today and only went up on the radio a day or two earlier. I’m surprised King waited so long. Latham has been advertising heavily on television for the past few weeks and put up his first radio ad during the summer.

Here is the basic information from the candidates’ FEC filings. Click the links to access the full reports.

IA-01

Bruce Braley: $184,854.12 raised during 3Q, $107,099.90 spent, $402,586.60 cash on hand

Dave Hartsuch: $25,163.00 raised during 3Q, $30,447.28 spent, $7,391.01 cash on hand

IA-02

Dave Loebsack: $110,442.10 raised during 3Q, $116,561.03 spent, $456,656.96 cash on hand

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has not yet filed her report; I will update with that when available. Her report for the second quarter is here. UPDATE: She reported $108,599.26 raised during 3Q, $61,944.50 spent, $83,274.27 cash on hand

IA-03

Leonard Boswell: $133,045.34 raised during 3Q, $198,211.79 spent, $325,757.93 cash on hand

Kim Schmett: $56,294.35 raised during 3Q, $61,306.22 spent, $23,537.30 cash on hand

Note: According to his 3Q filing, Ed Fallon has paid off most of his debt from the third district primary against Boswell.

IA-04

Becky Greenwald: $308,452.01 raised during 3Q, $354,422.07 spent, $24,476.99 cash on hand

Tom Latham: $290,815.32 raised during 3Q, $269,858.03 spent, $774,671.45 cash on hand

IA-05

Rob Hubler: $95,235.42 raised during 3Q, $56,168.81 spent, $64,654.06 cash on hand

Steve King: $191,689.27 raised during 3Q, $91,993.28 spent, $351,239.55 cash on hand

I’ve written before about why Democrats should support Rob Hubler, who’s running against Steve King in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

We can all agree that Hubler is a good Democrat with a compelling biography, while King is among the worst of the worst House Republicans.

But when I talk to Democrats about this race, I’ve noticed that too many people assume King cannot be beaten because Iowa’s fifth district is too Republican (its Cook Partisan Voting Index is R+8).

In fact, ten Democrats currently represent Congressional districts with a partisan index of R+8 or higher, and another 14 Democrats represent Congressional districts that have a partisan index between R+5 and R+8. In 2006, Democrats came close to winning several districts that tilt far more strongly to Republicans than King’s.

2laneIA and DemocracyLover in NYC have written good pieces on why Hubler is a solid contender in IA-05. Click those links to read about Hubler’s active campaign, King’s strangely dormant campaign, and an encouraging poll of the fifth district (which among other things showed the generic Congressional ballot virtually tied). King has faced only token opposition in past elections, but Hubler and his staff have been working in all of the 32 counties.

I want to step back and examine the partisan lean of IA-05 and how it relates to other red districts represented by Democrats.

As I mentioned above, IA-05 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+8. That means that averaging the results from the last two presidential elections, the Republican candidate received about 8 percentage points more than the national average in Iowa’s fifth district.

The partisan index number reflects only the presidential vote. However, plenty of Congressional districts lean Republican for president while electing Democrats to represent them in the House. Such ticket-splitting has occurred in western Iowa. During the 1970s and 1980s, Tom Harkin represented many of the southwest counties now in IA-05 for five terms, and Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest counties in the district for six terms.

It’s worth noting that Harkin and Bedell were first elected in the Democratic wave election of 1974, but they were able to hold their seats even in strong Republican years like 1978 and 1980 (and in Bedell’s case 1984; Harkin ran successfully for Senate that year).

Also, remember that this year’s Republican presidential nominee is not nearly as popular in the fifth district as George Bush was in 2000 and 2004. On the contrary; some polls have shown Barack Obama leading John McCain even in western Iowa. McCain has little field operation here, while Obama’s campaign has at least a half-dozen offices in IA-05 to help maximize Democratic turnout.

Democratic voter registration has greatly increased in all parts of the state. While Republicans still have a voter registration edge in the fifth district, the growing ranks of Democrats can put Hubler in position for an upset if he beats King among independent voters by a significant margin.

Certainly the Republican candidate has to be favored in a district with an R+8 lean, but it is by no means unprecedented for a Democrat to overcome that partisan slant. Here’s a list of the Democrats who represent Congressional districts that are at least R+5 (please correct any omissions in the comments):

Dan Boren in Oklahoma 2 (R+5)

Melissa Bean in Illinois 8 (R+5)

Bill Foster in Illinois 14 (R+5)

Charlie Melancon in Louisiana 3 (R+5)

John Spratt, South Carolina 5 (R+6)

Collin Peterson, Minnesota 7 (R+6)

Zach Space in Ohio 18 (R+6)

John Salazar Colorado 5 (R+6)

Bud Cramer in Alabama 5 (R+6)

Ben Chandler in Kentucky 6 (R+7)

Nancy Boyda in Kansas 2 (R+7)

Baron Hill in Indiana 9 (R+7)

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11 (R+7)

Don Cazayoux in Louisiana 6 (R+7)

Chris Carney in Pennsylvania 10 (R+8)

Brad Ellsworth in Indiana 8 (R+9)

Travis Childers, Mississippi 1 (R+10)

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, South Dakota at-large (R+10)

Ike Skelton, Missouri 4 (R+11)

Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota at-large (R+13)

Nick Lampson, Texas 22 (R+15)

Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4 (R+16)

Chet Edwards, Texas 17 (R+17)

Jim Matheson, Utah 2 (R+17)

You would think that all of these Democrats would be skating on thin ice, representing such Republican territory. However, if you look at lists of competitive House districts (for instance, at Swing State Project, Open Left or the Cook Political Report), you will notice that many of these seats are considered safe for the Democratic incumbent.

Boyda, Herseth-Sandlin and Pomeroy are among the Democrats representing deep-red districts with demographic profiles similar to IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural).

Another notable fact is that Democrats seem to pick up several deep-red seats in good years for the party across the country. So, Boyda, Space, Shuler, Carney and Ellsworth all won their seats for the first time in the 2006 election. Cazayoux, Foster and Childers all won their seats in special elections during 2008.

I also want to mention several districts where Democrats lost narrowly in 2006 despite a massive partisan advantage for the Republicans. Those include Wyoming’s at-large seat (R+19), Idaho’s first district (R+19), Ohio’s second district (R+13), and Colorado’s fourth district (R+9). This year Colorado’s fourth and Alaska’s at-large seat (R+14) are both considered tossups.

My point is that it would not be unprecedented for a Democratic challenger to defeat a Republican incumbent in a district like IA-05. King is still favored to win here, but there are good reasons the DCCC put this seat on its “Races to Watch” list.

If you live in the fifth district, I encourage you to sign up to volunteer for Hubler’s campaign. This Saturday is a district-wide volunteer day. You can also help by telling your friends and neighbors about Rob and encouraging them to vote for “a servant, not a King.”

Whether or not you live in the district, I hope you will donate to Rob’s campaign. King’s war chest is not particularly large for an incumbent. Strong fundraising for Hubler by the September 30 deadline will help persuade the DCCC to become more actively involved in this race.

With your help, Iowa’s west can be won.

Earlier this year, Mrs. panstreppon wrote several stories on the conservative American Future Fund. You can find them here, here, and here.

This week Jason Hancock wrote a good piece for Iowa Independent about this advocacy group, which is running ads in close Congressional races across the country. This part caught my eye:

Public records show the AFF also has connections to Iowa businessman Bruce Rastetter, who is widely believed to be considering a run for governor in 2010. Rastetter is a regular donor to the Republican Party and founder of Hawkeye Renewables, the fourth largest ethanol producer in the nation. Eric Peterson, business manager at Summit Farms, another of Rastetter’s companies, is listed on documents filed with the Iowa Secretary of State’s office as president, secretary and director of Iowa Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that essentially morphed into American Future Fund.

The address listed on an AFF ad buy in Minnesota is a post office box used by Nick Ryan, a Des Moines lobbyist who works primarily for Rastetter’s companies and who served as campaign manager for 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle. In February, Ryan was acting as spokesman for Hawkeye Renewables when 29,000 gallons of ethanol was accidentally spilled at the company’s Iowa Falls plant.

Within the past year, Rastetter donated $1 million to the Iowa State Fair and $1.75 million to the Iowa State University Agricultural Entrepreneurship Program. That will build up a lot of good will across this state.

But last week the Wall Street Journal made a big deal about how Barack Obama supposedly “only” raised $30 million in June.

Today Obama’s campaign revealed that it raised $52 million in June, and the Democratic National Committee raised $22 million the same month. Obama apparently has about $72 million in cash on hand, while the DNC has about $20 million in cash on hand.

At Open Left, tremayne graphed Obama’s fundraising per month this year. February was his best month; he raised $55 million then.

John McCain raised about $22 million in June, but the Republican National Committee has crushed the DNC in fundraising this year, so if you combine the RNC and McCain numbers, their side has slightly more cash on hand.

But guess what? The average donation for Obama in June was $68. That means he has a ton of small donors who are not maxed out. In fact, only $2 million of the $52 million he raised is for the general election (in other words, came from people who had already maxed out at $2,300 for the primary).

I found this analysis by Jerome Armstrong intriguing:

I believe that Obama could have raised $100M in June if that’s what they wanted to do. In fact, there may have been plans to do just that too, but they changed. Notice that just $2M was raised for the GE by Obama, they certainly could have raised a ton more money there if they had wanted, for the GE, at least $20-30M, and combined with the $74M that was raised between Obama and DNC, over $100M.

So, either the Obama camp isn’t as committed to self-funding for the GE, and might still go the route of taking the $84M in public financing (unlikely); or they are holding off their donors to give for the GE later (there are accounts of projecting a $100M month in Sept); or the Obama camp will use July and August to raise big numbers for the GE, as the decision to opt-out was made on June 19th, late in the month for fundraising plans. It could be either of these last two it seems.

Certainly Obama will not take public financing for the general. But could his campaign be deliberately holding big general-election donations off until later this summer?

Reporting a $100 million haul this fall, at the height of the campaign, could hurt Republican morale and drive a lot of media coverage about the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Maybe McCain will be forced to pick Mitt Romney for a running mate. He’s disliked by the Christian right but excellent at bringing in cash. Romney-skeptic Jeff Angelo is re-thinking the wisdom of this course for the GOP nominee.

Put your thoughts and suppositions about the presidential candidates’ fundraising in the comment thread.

Last spring, I donated to John Edwards’ presidential campaign through his page at Act Blue. Yesterday this e-mail arrived in my in-box:

You did it once.

When John Edwards asked for your support, you gave it.

Now we’re asking you to do it again.

Democrats are now in the next round of the fight to win the White House, and we need to work together to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

We know you care about the Democratic Party, and we want to help you get involved again.

After Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on Tuesday night, your fellow Democrats joined the fight for the White House and started fundraising for Obama on ActBlue. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times cited these new ActBlue pages as “a measure of [Obama’s] power on the Internet.”

Join the legions of Democrats who are already fundraising for Obama.

Become a fundraiser and create a fundraising page.

With the media looking at ActBlue to gauge the strength of Obama’s online support, we need you to get involved now.

Prove that a unified Democratic Party cannot and will not be defeated.

Build a personal fundraising page and ask each of your friends and family members to contribute to the Obama campaign. Build it right here. Ask right now.

From all of us here at ActBlue, thanks.

Erin Hill

Political Director

ActBlue

I’ll be honest I am directing my own giving and fundraising energy this year to several non-profit groups as well as Iowa candidates who need my money more than Obama does.

The Los Angeles Times article linked above notes that Obama already has a cash advantage over John McCain, and that’s before he has tapped many of Hillary Clinton’s major donors.

However, I think this is a great idea for people who are enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign. It probably will generate some good free media for him if thousands of supporters create their own Obama fundraising pages, raising a few hundred bucks from their friends and family.

Also, Act Blue is a great resource for Democratic candidates, so I’m all for supporting their efforts.

If you plan to set up your own fundraising page for Obama, or have already raised money online for candidates, share your expertise in the comments.

“Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority” is an Act Blue page created by noneed4thneed to raise money for several Democrats running for the Iowa House. Check it out.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

The conservative pundits who favored Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson for president are fully on board with John McCain, but he still has a big problem with other elements of the conservative base.

Exhibit A: the results from the GOP primary in Pennsylvania last week. More than two months after it became clear that McCain would be the GOP nominee, he gained just under 73 percent of the vote from Pennsylvania Republicans. Ron Paul got almost 16 percent (more than 128,000 votes), and Mike Huckabee got about 11 percent (more than 91,000 votes).

Think about that. More than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania went to the trouble of voting for someone other than McCain last Tuesday.

McCain did the worst in conservative counties where Republicans need to run up big margins to have any hope of winning statewide in Pennsylvania:

Mr. McCain’s worst showing was in Juniata County, near the center of the state. He received only about 59 percent of the vote, while Mr. Paul took nearly 28 percent. In 2004, President Bush won Juniata with 72 percent of the vote.

Mr. Bush had his biggest win that year in southern Fulton County, with 76 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain picked up 71 percent there, but Mr. Huckabee had 21 percent, his highest percentage in the state.

The conservative Washington Times has more bad news for McCain:

The McCain campaign has said it is on the same timeline for uniting the Republican Party as then-Gov. George W. Bush in 2000. In that year, Mr. Bush won 73 percent of the Republican vote in Pennsylvania’s primary, held April 4. His biggest challenger was McCain himself, who won 23 percent, despite having dropped out of the campaign weeks earlier.

But McCain was a far more imposing figure in 2000 than Paul and Huckabee were in 2008, and McCain has also had more time before Pennsylvania to consolidate his lead than Bush had in 2000. To continue to post less-than-dominant showings will only prolong talk that McCain has more work to do within his own party.

And to truly match Bush’s 2000 performance may be out of the question for McCain. Out of 18.5 million votes cast in the primaries so far he has won 43.2 percent. By contrast, Bush finished 2000 with 62 percent of the Republican primary vote.

Then I learned from this diary by sarahlane that Ron Paul says he doesn’t plan to campaign for McCain, and Paul supporters outnumbered McCain supporters at the Nevada Republican Party’s state convention last weekend.

Finally, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a complaint against McCain with the Federal Elections Commission. If you’re too young to remember Judicial Watch, this group repeatedly attacked Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s.

Click the link to read the MyDD post by Jonathan Singer. Judicial Watch’s FEC complaint relates to a possibly illegal in-kind contribution from a foreign national to McCain’s campaign.

As I’ve mentioned before, prominent bloggers have filed a separate FEC complaint relating to McCain’s failure to abide by the spending limits imposed on candidates who agree to take public matching funds during the presidential primaries.

Very dishonest.

Over at MyDD, Josh Orton picked up on a story from Sunday’s New York Times, which

exposes two more broken McCain pledges: to not to fly on corporate jets, and to not exploit his wife’s wealth for campaign advantage.

First, the campaign finance side – by exploiting a loophole left open by the non-functioning FEC, McCain flew for months on a corporate jet owned by his wife’s company, but only paid a fraction of the cost […]

Not only is he exploiting a loophole to save millions, he’s actually going back on an earlier pledge. In early 2007, McCain’s campaign swore off the practice of using corporate jets […]

Oh yeah, and McCain is also breaking a promise not to use his wife’s vast wealth for his presidential campaign. Click over to Orton’s diary for details on that.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post had a good write-up of McCain’s recent visit to New Orleans. The candidate criticized the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, but conveniently failed to mention his many Senate votes “against relief measures for Katrina victims” and “against an investigation into the failures of the government response” to Katrina. The article notes that “McCain also voted against providing additional funding for first responders’ communication systems”.

If you click that link you can also view a slide show of George Bush and John McCain celebrating with a birthday cake for McCain in Arizona on August 29, 2005, the day the levees broke in New Orleans.

Speaking of McCain in New Orleans, MoveOn.Org sent out an e-mail with details on the results of

its recent petition drive, and the media coverage they were able to generate:

Amazing. The very morning that John McCain visited New Orleans, 140,000 of us signed a petition calling on him to reject the support of extreme right-wing evangelist John Hagee, who said that Hurricane Katrina was a case of God punishing the city for its sins. At the same time, a group of local MoveOn members rallied outside his town hall event with the same message. McCain was asked about the issue at the event, and again by reporters after.

Almost instantly, the fact that McCain was pandering to the far right while playing “centrist” in the Big Easy became a national news story. The Associated Press and Reuters covered our actions, and the New York Times, Boston Globe, and MSNBC all reported on the disturbing links between Hagee, McCain, and the city of New Orleans.1

Best of all, the Baltimore Sun quoted New Orleans MoveOn member Harry Greenberg as saying, “Shame on John McCain for using New Orleans for a photo op while still courting support from hatemongers like Hagee.”2

A big “thank you” to the New Orleans MoveOn members who bravely spoke out for all of us against McCain’s courtship of hatemongers. And thanks to all of you who reacted so quickly to support them. We’ll be spending a lot more time in the next few months telling the truth about John McCain, and we’re glad you’re part of the effort.

-Eli, Daniel, Wes, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

 Sunday, April 27th, 2008

P.S. If you want to get involved with rapid response actions like Thursday’s rally in New Orleans, consider joining your local MoveOn Council. You can join a council near you by clicking here:

http://operationdemocracy.org?…

Sources:

1. “McCain sharply critical of Bush response to Katrina,” Reuters, April 24, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3612…

“McCain to New Orleans: Never Again,” Associated Press, April 24, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3613…

“McCain Goes Where Few Republicans Dare, Deep in Democrats’ Territory,” New York Times, April 26, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3614…

“Hagee retracts Katrina comment,” Boston Globe, April 25, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3615…

“McCain criticizes Bush, Congress on Hurricanes,” MSNBC, April 24, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24…

2. “MoveOn calls for McCain move on Hagee,” Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2008

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell's campaign to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon's faults.

Boswell's staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I'M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon's stand against taking contributions from political action committees (PACs) while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I'M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon's salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

This post looks at the evidence on whether Fallon considered running for governor as an independent.

Follow me after the jump for more on Fallon, Boswell and PACs.

Campaign finance law, that is.

Yes, the big campaign finance reformer is flouting the law that governs public matching funds for presidential campaigns.

A group of bloggers including Markos of Daily Kos and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The complaint accuses McCain of

violations of campaign finance law for spending beyond limits imposed by his decision to take public financing.

McCain has claimed he is backing off that decision, and justifies it with the fact that he never received any of that public money. However, the law clearly states that he is bound by those limits if he uses the promise of those funds in order to secure campaign loans — something he absolutely did.

Legal expert Adam B explains more about this issue today.

Also, MoveOn.org Political Action sent out an e-mail about this issue, and I’ve put the full text after the jump.

The e-mail includes a link you can click if you want to sign on to the FEC complaint as well.

Incidentally, I have read that McCain also used the certificate saying he had qualified for matching funds in order to avoid the onerous signature requirements to get on the ballot for the Ohio primary. So he didn’t just use the commitment to take matching funds to secure a loan, he also used it to get on the ballot.

Now, worried that he won’t be able to compete with the Democratic nominee financially, he is trying to back out. What a weasel.

Is it just me, or does John Edwards sometimes remind anyone else of your typical superhero?  You know, fighting for the little guy, saving democracy, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?  Well, OK, maybe not that last one, but the man is inspiring.

Today, John gave a speech in New Hampshire that was all about saving democracy.  After years of having politicians tell us that the best we can expect is incremental change within our broken system, it is quite astounding to hear someone actually tell the truth about what is wrong with our system, and propose major reforms to fix it. To me, having the courage to confront our big problems and offer real solutions makes John a real hero, despite the conspicuous lack of spandex in his wardrobe.