Did anyone go to the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention today?

Use this as an open thread to talk about what happened there.

UPDATE: John Deeth liveblogged the convention for Iowa Independent.

Chet Culver donated $100,000 from his campaign committee to the “coordinated campaign” that will get out the vote for all Democrats in Iowa this November.

The organized labor community is still mad at Culver for vetoing the collective bargaining bill this spring, as this curtain-raiser by the AP’s Mike Glover confirms.

The solution is to elect more Democrats to both chambers of the legislature, which the coordinated campaign will help do. With solid Democratic majorities, another collective bargaining bill can be passed in 2009, with a more open legislative process than what occurred this year.

Jason Hancock has a story up at Iowa Independent about labor unions working hard to increase the Democratic majorities in the Iowa legislature.

It’s clear that members of the labor community are still furious that Governor Chet Culver vetoed a collective-bargaining bill passed toward the end of this year’s session:

Ken Sager, president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said the 2008 legislative session ended on a sour note, but he hopes that be used as motivation in the future.

“A lot of our members are very disappointed and angry that we were finally able to get a [collective bargaining] bill through the legislature and we couldn’t get the governor’s signature,” he said. “We were very surprised, and we’ve heard from a number of legislative leaders who were just as stunned as we were. Now, we’re trying to focus that anger in a productive way to help build the labor movement for the future.”

In the federation’s most recent newsletter, the veto was put in much starker terms.

“The 2008 Legislative Session will go down in Iowa labor history as the session when a Democratic governor turned his back on the unions that enthusiastically supported him and helped get him elected,” the newsletter said. “When Gov. Culver vetoed the public sector collective bargaining bill, not only public workers, but all of labor was stunned by what they felt was an out-and-out betrayal.”

Cityview weekly’s “Civic Skinny” column recently commented on the strained relationship:

It wasn’t on his schedule, but [Culver] showed up the other day at the dedication of the Iowa Workers Monument. Skinny wasn’t sure what that means – so she turned to the Senior Analyst for Civic Skinny, who had a ready explanation. “This was organized labor’s effort to recognize Iowa’s workers that started way back in 2004. With the collective bargaining veto, it would have added insult to injury to have skipped the event, but he didn’t put it on his public schedule or send out a press release to promote the dedication of the monument – which is located on state property,” the Senior Analyst analyzed. Then, morphing into a Senior Cynic, he added: “Maybe this was the advice he got from the same pollsters that advised him to veto the collective bargaining bill.” “Way back in 2004” is code for “during the Vilsack administration,” and several Vilsack people – including the former governor himself – are on the Monument committee, which might be another reason Culver didn’t play up the dedication.

I wish labor unions every success in helping elect more Democratic legislators who are strong on their issues.

If Culver had asked for my advice, I would have encouraged him to sign the collective-bargaining bill. I wasn’t persuaded by the arguments that corporate and Republican interest groups made against it.

That said, the Democrats in the legislature badly bungled the passage of the bill, in my opinion.

Let’s take a step back.

In 2007 the slim Democratic majority in the House was unable to hold together to pass the “fair share” bill that would have weakened Iowa’s right-to-work law. This was one of the hot-button issues from the earliest days of the session, and it was a blow to the leadership’s credibility not to get it through.

Statehouse leaders tried a different tactic with the collective-bargaining bill this year. Instead of making clear early in the session that it would be one of their priorities, they let it be added as a 14-page amendment to a different bill, after the first funnel deadline had passed.

In theory, bills need to be approved by a legislative committee before that funnel deadline in order to be voted on during the legislative session. There are exceptions (the leadership can introduce new bills after the funnel), but in general, major initiatives are not supposed to be introduced after the funnel date.

Then, Democrats tried to limit debate over the collective bargaining proposal, prompting Senate Republicans to take unusual steps to force debate on it.

As I said above, I support the substance of the bill. I understand why it would be advantageous for the leadership not to tip their hand early in the session about the collective bargaining bill. Doing so would have given opponents more time to mobilize against it and lean on the less reliable members of the Democratic caucus.

But look at this situation from Culver’s perspective. The Democrats in the legislature looked like they were afraid to debate the collective bargaining measure in broad daylight. That’s what is implied when you introduce a major policy initiative as a long amendment and limit debate before forcing it through on a party-line vote.

I have no idea whether Culver vetoed the bill over substantive disagreements or solely because of political considerations, but I understand his reluctance to get behind a controversial bill approved in this manner.

Let’s elect more good Democrats to the legislature. They should be able to pass a strong collective bargaining bill next year without giving the appearance of trying to slip it in under the radar.

Then Culver should sign it without hesitation.

I don’t spend a lot of time reading conservative blogs, but my brief tour around Iowa’s Republican blogosphere yesterday revealed acute concern about the prospect of a special legislative session to address the recent historic flooding in much of the state.

We have thousands of Iowans needing assistance with housing, as well as huge clean-up and reconstruction tasks.

But the Flyover Country blog is convinced that the nasty Democrats are talking about a special session solely to reap political benefits. That blogger sees Democratic efforts to “politicize the floods” everywhere he looks. He names June 11 as the first day of this nefarious strategy, citing this story about Governor Chet Culver mobilizing National Guard units and talking about a possible special session of the legislature.

Side note: it seems like a distant memory, but back before George W. Bush was president, National Guard units were mostly used to deal with this kind of situation, rather than to fight foreign wars.

But I digress.

Why wouldn’t our elected officials convene to address such a huge catastrophe? The Iowa flooding has been dominating national news. I’ve gotten phone calls and e-mails from all over the country and even abroad, asking if we are ok and how bad the damage is.

Members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation (Republicans as well as Democrats) are working fast to get federal money to assist with cleanup and reconstruction efforts in flood-ravaged areas.

I expect representatives from other states to expedite this process, because the damage to Iowa’s infrastructure could have far-reaching economic effects. For more on that, read SlyDi’s piece, “How A Midwest Flood Can Drag Down A Nation.”

A different conservative blog, Battleground Iowa, thinks state officials and legislators should wait and see how much damage there is, how many people are insured, and what the federal government will do before getting the state involved.

In other words, “Don’t just do something–stand there!”

Do you think the public expects our elected officials to just wait and see who else will step in to deal with a historic natural disaster affecting tens of thousands of Iowans?

I would love to see Iowa Republicans come out against a special legislative session to focus on state flood relief and reconstruction efforts. Let them make the case for state government doing nothing.

The Real Sporer had a slightly different angle, taking offense mainly at the idea that Iowa might go into debt to pay for flood relief and reconstruction:

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal’s knee jerk reaction saw only the opportunity to outspend the State’s emergency fund and incur debt to finance the difference.

Here’s a thought; if the emergency fund isn’t adequate to cover the socialist’s blue sky list of flood relief start cutting other items. Start with a deep Dave Vaudt audit over at the Departments of Education and Human Services. At a time when Iowa will have thousands of real victims of tragic circumstance on our hands when would be a better time to ask why the cost of education is five times faster than the general rate of inflation in Iowa’s larger economy?

Please, Republicans, please tell Iowans that we should cut education spending if our state’s “rainy day fund” is not sufficient to cover the cost of flood relief.

Seriously, when even the notorious tax-hating deficit hawk David Yepsen says we need to “Borrow to bankroll massive rebuilding,” it’s time for Republicans to question their automatic distrust of every government effort to help people.

Just to show that I don’t automatically distrust every comment by every Republican, State 29 raises some valid questions about government support for economic development in flood zones (even if I don’t share all of his conclusions).

Also, I agree with Krusty Konservative that it was inappropriate for Senator Wally Horn (who represents much of the Cedar Rapids area) to say, “These are good loyal Democrats, and they need our help.”

Residents of flood-ravaged areas deserve equal attention from the government, no matter what their voting patterns.

I was offended when the Bush administration was quicker to get post-Katrina aid to Mississippi than to the most devastated areas of New Orleans, and I would be offended if officials in Iowa seemed to favor certain towns or neighborhoods because of how their residents vote.

which has received the 2008 State Leadership Award from the American Wind Energy Association. This is from a press release that circulated on the Iowa Renewable Energy Association’s e-mail loop:

“Governor Culver and his team in Iowa have been extraordinarily effective in drawing wind power companies to their state – in the heart of America’s ‘wind belt,'” said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher.  “They have helped launch a new wave of clean-energy-based economic activity in the Midwest, attracting at least five major manufacturers to Iowa through innovative policy and aggressive, pro-business strategies.  We’re glad to recognize their leadership with this award.”

[…]

Iowa is number one in the nation in wind generation as percentage of total generation, with 5.5% (1,271 MW) of its total electricity generated by wind power facilities. The state’s strong manufacturing base, excellent transportation infrastructure and skilled workforce have made it attractive to manufacturers.  In addition, the Iowa Power Fund promotes the state’s burgeoning wind industry and provides a $100 million grant resource to companies and researchers in Iowa who are fostering renewable energy within the state.

This industry would grow further if we could get the Democratic leaders in our state legislature to pass an ambitious renewable portfolio standard (for instance, requiring that 20 percent of Iowa’s energy be generated from renewable sources by 2020).

The Iowa Department of Economic Development has been doing a lot of good things the past couple of years. It’s always nice when good work is acknowledged.

The full text of the AWEA’s press release is after the jump.

I supported the Culver administration’s efforts to expand the bottle bill, even though I disagreed with some aspects of the bill the governor submitted to the legislature this year.

That said, this story from the Sunday Des Moines Register was troubling:

Word came from the lieutenant governor: If gambling lobbyists didn’t help deliver the bottle bill, they were likely to see the death of a much-coveted bill that would provide a financial advantage for casinos.

The behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the Legislature illustrates the political capital Gov. Chet Culver’s administration was willing to spend on the bottle bill – even if it caused lobbyists angst.

Some gambling lobbyists said it would be awkward, and possibly unethical, to lobby for a bill in which their clients either had no stake or had conflicting interests, and they declined to do it.

[…]

Lt. Gov. Patty Judge is unapologetic about asking gambling lobbyists for their help with the bottle bill, even though it caused turmoil in the rotunda. “I talked to a lot of people about that and asked for their help, and I will sure admit that,” Judge said. “I asked anybody within my earshot to help me with the bottle bill.”

She said she did not consider her request to the gambling lobbyists an ultimatum.

Judge’s spokesman, Troy Price, said: “There was never a ‘You do this or else.’ That was never issued.”

If this article is accurate, then what Judge did does not sit well with me.

We all know that “you pass my bill and I’ll pass yours” is a normal way of conducting business in any legislature. I don’t like drawing lobbyists into this practice, though. They should not weigh in on issues that have no bearing on their clients.

In fairness to Judge or anyone else in the Culver administration who may have been on board with this strategy, it’s clear that Iowa legislative leaders are not going to expand the bottle bill just because it’s the right thing to do. (For more on why adding a deposit to more types of beverage containers would be good for the environment, check out the website of the Container Recycling Institute.)

It’s also clear that the broad bipartisan public support for expanding the bottle bill is not enough to overcome the resistance from the grocery and bottling industries.

It says a lot about our Democratic leadership in the legislature if Judge or others thought the only way to counteract the influence of certain industry lobbyists was to enlist other lobbyists to support the bottle bill.

Democrats should be willing to expand recycling programs without needing that kind of a push.

To everyone who worked hard toward the passage of a law expanding health insurance coverage for Iowa children, which Chet Culver signed yesterday.

To the Iowa Council for International Understanding, which has posted translations of Iowa voter registration documents on its website in light of a court ruling that bars the Secretary of State’s office from providing information in any language other than English.

To Senator Chuck Grassley for looking into the spending practices of six tax-exempt “media-based ministries,” despite a large-scale public relations campaign accusing him of “religious McCarthyism.”

To Iowa Independent blogger Dien Judge, who was just appointed to the Monroe County board of supervisors, a position he will hold for the next six months.

And to Iowa City Council member Ross Wilburn, the bicyclist who won Johnson County’s annual Bike-to-Work Week Bike-Bus-Car race.

Put up a comment if you know of someone else who deserves congratulations this week.

This week Governor Culver signed into law a bill that establishes a statewide 1-cent sales tax for school infrastructure. That tax will replace the local-option sales tax for school infrastructure, which has been adopted in all 99 counties.

The problem with the local-option sales tax has been that school districts in counties with a large retail base get much more funding per student than school districts in counties without many local retail options. Why should students in Warren County have to learn in crumbling schools because there are more shopping options in Polk and Dallas counties?

A few years back there was an uproar in Des Moines when it emerged that the school district didn’t have enough money to fix up all the schools. Partly that was due to poor budgeting, but the explosion of big-box retail in Dallas County played a role as well, because fewer local-option sales tax dollars were staying in Polk County.

Des Moines’ alternative weekly Cityview doesn’t like the new law. They may be right that the motivation for passing it was to make sure voters wouldn’t be able to ditch the extra penny sales tax. The old law forced counties to get voters to renew the local-option sales tax every ten years, and many people think Polk County voters would have rejected any proposal to renew the local-option tax approved in 1999.

The new statewide sales tax won’t expire until 2029.

Cityview is also troubled by the move away from “local control,” but here I am 100 percent with IowaVoter:

This crazy local-option sales tax was created in a previous Republican-run legislature.  It siphons money from counties with little retail trade to counties with larger trade, such as Polk county.  It sounds like something rural Republicans should have opposed, but they always go for regressive taxes.  The local control aspect took the burden off them, too.

Thank Democrats for partly fixing this folly.  The tax is still regressive but now it will give rural areas a fair shake.  Republicans lost control of the legislature for a reason.  Democrats should not shrink from the burden of correcting old errors, even if Republicans drag their feet.

Cityview doesn’t seem to get how the current system operates and is bothered that the new law

expects taxpayers in Des Moines, for example, to bail out crumbling schools in Sioux City or Davenport or some other place where we have no say in how our money is being spent. It isn’t that Iowans shouldn’t bond together to help one another, but it should be left to local taxpayers to vote on how their money is spent as a way to keep school districts in line – not a group of bureaucrats.

But of course, the current system gives people in the majority of Iowa’s counties little more than the illusion of local control. Whether or not they approve a local-option sales tax in their own county, they still end up pumping money into school districts located in other counties–and neither they nor their local school boards have any say in how that money is spent.

Students should not be punished for living in a county without many retail options.

On the last day of the 2008 session, the legislature approved big raises for Iowa’s top elected officials, the Des Moines Register reported on Monday.

Governor Chet Culver (D) would get nearly a 10 percent raise, Attorney General Tom Miller (D) would get about an 11 percent raise, and 23 percent pay hikes would go to Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge (D), Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey (R), State Auditor David Vaudt (R), Secretary of State Mike Mauro (D), and State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald (D).

The article says the raises are intended to bring the elected officials’ salaries in line with what the top administrators of several state departments receive. It seems like quite a big jump to me, though. I would be happier with a law granting routine cost-of-living adjustments to top elected officials.

What do you think?

Noneed4thneed noticed that Steve King (who represents Iowa’s fifth district in Congress) spoke at the GOP’s second district convention last weekend. He wonders whether King might be weighing a run for governor in 2010:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

All I can say is, may it be so.

I’ve been hoping that King would get bored with being in the minority party and retire from Congress. In all likelihood the GOP would hold on to the seat, but maybe they would elect someone less embarrassing.

If Chet Culver running for an open governor’s seat beat a Congressman from eastern Iowa by 100,000 votes, I’m guessing that as an incumbent running against a Congressman from western Iowa, Culver would win by 200,000 votes or more.

Thursday’s Des Moines Register contains a lengthy report on Governor Chet Culver’s recent vacation stay at a Florida condominium owned by Bill Knapp, a leading donor to Democrats in Iowa.

Knapp has been a friend to the Culver family for decades and “was the biggest individual contributor to Culver’s gubernatorial campaign in 2006, donating $112,500.”

The article quotes Knapp as saying Culver pays $1,000 per week in advance when his family stays at the condo. It then quotes a real estate broker in Florida as estimating a comparable condo would rent for $2,700 per week.

Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board, said he didn’t have enough information to say whether Knapp is a restricted donor or whether ethics rules were broken. “Ultimately, that’s the board’s decision to make,” Smithson said.

Smithson said no one has complained about the condo deal, but the board would have to look into it if someone did.

I doubt there will be any formal complaint regarding this issue, because the Register also reports that State Representative John Putney, a Republican and personal friend to Knapp, stayed at the condo during this year’s legislative session as well.

Unlike Culver, Putney did not pay up front for the use of the condo. Instead, he says that he treated members of the Knapp family to expensive dinners (costing about $600 per evening) in exchange for the use of the condo.

The Register quotes Putney as saying Knapp “has never asked me for one thing legislatively,” and quotes Knapp as saying he doesn’t ask Culver for anything or offer him gifts.

Although it’s natural to stay at the home of a close family friend, it would be prudent for elected officials or appointees to pay market rates for those vacation stays, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety–especially when the owner of the vacation home is a large campaign donor.

Remember that Republican group, Iowa Future Fund, which has been running advertisements against Governor Chet Culver since last summer?

Mrs. Panstreppon alerted me to an article she wrote at TPM Cafe: American Future Fund & Iowa Future Fund, GOP Fronts. You should read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts (the embedded links did not come through–you’ll have to click over to TPM Cafe to see those):

American Future Fund (AFF) is running ads in support of Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Iowa Future Fund (IFF)is running ads against Governor Chet Culver (D-Iowa)and there has been speculation in the media as to who is behind AFF and IFF. Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker posted about AFF and IFF and the Des Moines Register and Minnesota NPR among others have run stories about the two entities.

Last week, Minnesota Democrats filed an FEC complaint against American Future Fund.

I reviewed AFF and IFF documents filed with the Iowa Secretary of State on 8/7/07 and the incorporator is Jessica Young at 98 Alexandria Pike, Ste 53, in Warrenton, VA. That is the address of Holtzman Vogel, a law firm owned by two very influential and well-known Republican operatives, Alex N. Vogel and his wife, Jill Holtzman Vogel.

[…]

On 2/7/08, an Eric Peterson filed a fictitious name resolution in order for Iowa Future Fund to do business as “IFF”. Peterson listed himself as IFF president, secretary and director but no address or phone number was provided.

Jessica Young as IFF incorporator has the power to appoint directors so I assume she appointed Eric Peterson. But Young isn’t talking. I called her at Holtzman Vogel and was referred instead to an attorney named Teresa who told me that it was the firm’s policy to keep client matters confidential. When I pointed out that HV seemed to be the client, she refused to comment.[…]

According to Stu Rothenberg at the Rothenberg Report, Republican operatives Ben Ginsberg and Edward T. Tobin III are also involved in IFF and AFF. Ginsberg, former counsel to the Bush-Cheney campaign, is a partner in Patton Boggs’s public policy and lobbying group. Tobin, former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, is a partner in Wilmer Hale’s fairly new Public Policy and Strategy Group.

David Kochel has acknowledged that he is an IFF advisor but refuses to say anything more. Kochel, a former Iowa Republican Party director, was most recently an advisor to the ill-fated Romney campaign and he advised Lamar Alexander in 2000. Kochel, along with Jennifer Dean, owns JDK Marketing and Public Affairs.

Who is Eric Peterson, Iowa Future Fund president, secretary and director? One guess is that he is Eric Peterson, Summit Farms business manager. A 2007 Iowa State U. grad, Peterson donated $2k to Rudy Giuliani in December as did other Summit Farms employees along with Peterson’s employer, wealthy Iowan businessman, Bruce Rastetter.

Bruce Rastetter, a big Republican donor, owns Hawkeye Renewables which owns and operates four ethanol plants in Iowa.

[…]

Rastetter himself is politically ambitious and considered running against Senator Tom Harkin this year.

[…]

Is Bruce Rastetter, a least in part, funding Iowa Future Fund and American Future Fund? It would certainly suit him politically to do so because he can keep the extent of his financial support of the Republican Party secret. Rastetter seems to be a practical guy in that he just made his first ever contribution to a Democrat, $25k to Gov. Culver. I doubt if Rastetter would want the governor to know he is funding ads criticizing him.

Bleeding Heartland readers, do you know anything more about Eric Peterson or other people behind the Iowa Future Fund?  If so, please put up a comment or e-mail me confidentially: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

Back in 2002, Steve King hadn’t yet become an embarrassment on the national stage; he was merely a crusader for intolerance in the Republican-controlled Iowa legislature. Tom Vilsack was a first-term governor nervously eyeing a midterm re-election campaign under the very popular President George W. Bush.

Seems like a long time ago, doesn’t it?

Anyway, King was obsessed with passing a law declaring English the official language of Iowa. Didn’t you know how difficult it had become for Iowans to express themselves without official acknowledgment of English’s status?

Vilsack vetoed one version of the bill, then signed the rewritten bill that came to his desk. Disappointed liberals were assured that Vilsack had made the smart play by taking the issue off the table for the November election. Besides, the new bill contained all kinds of exceptions, so it would be little more than a symbolic measure.

Well, this week a judge in Polk County “ordered Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro to stop using languages other than English in the state’s official voter registration forms”, the Des Moines Register’s William Petroski reported. (If you want to read the ruling, click here.)

In 2006 King, by then a U.S. Representative in Iowa’s fifth district, complained that then-Secretary of State Chet Culver had put voting information in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian and Vietnamese as well as English on the secretary of state’s website.

Attorney General Tom Miller had determined such action was acceptable because the official English law allowed for “any language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, or the Constitution of the state of Iowa.”

King filed suit last year against Culver and Mike Mauro, who was elected secretary of state in 2006.  District Judge Douglas Staskal concluded that voter registration forms in languages other than English are against the law, and voided the “improper exercise of agency power.”

Miller, like Culver and Mauro a Democrat, may appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court:

“Our view is that although the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act requires all official forms to be in English, it does not prohibit government officials from providing materials in other languages as well,” Miller said. “We argued that position to the District Court. This principle can be particularly important in the area of voting rights of citizens.”

If this ruling is upheld, it will hamper efforts to register voters whose native language is not English.

I’m with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, which wrote on Saturday that “it’s time for Iowa lawmakers to repeal this embarrassing law.”

They should do so because the law is mean-spirited and sends an anti-immigrant message. They should do so because it makes Iowa seem xenophobic. They should do so because it’s unnecessary when studies show today’s immigrants are learning English as quickly as their predecessors.

And to lawmakers who may have thought the law was toothless because it included exemptions, Judge Staskal’s ruling tells them otherwise. The law applies to “official action” from government, which is broadly defined. It could have a “chilling effect on speech by causing government employees to refrain from non-English communication all together,” he wrote.

There is still time for legislators to repeal the official English law this session.

Don’t let the ghost of Steve King constrain voting rights in the upcoming presidential election.

Governor Chet Culver on Tuesday signed into law Senate File 2347, which requires all Iowa counties to use optical scan voting machines and paper ballots.

The state will spend an estimated $4.6 million to replace touchscreen voting machines in 19 counties that have been using them.

It’s a relief that all 99 counties will be using similar voting equipment, which is less vulnerable to tampering than touchscreen machines and allows for hand and machine recounts in the event of a close election.

The Des Moines Register quoted Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity as saying voters will also save time in the counties that are replacing the paperless machines. Voting by touchscreen takes longer and leads to bigger backlogs at polling stations.

A lot of credit goes to Secretary of State Mike Mauro, who showed leadership on this issue despite the governor’s early objections to the cost of the plan and complaints by some officials in the counties that had purchased touchscreen machines.

I just got a robo-call from Governor Chet Culver inviting me to a fundraiser that he and Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge are hosting for Congressman Leonard Boswell this Saturday, April 5.

The event starts at 6:30 pm at the Hotel Fort Des Moines (10th and Walnut in Des Moines). The Too Many Strings Band will perform.

I received an invitation to this event in the mail two or three weeks ago. It looks like they are expecting contributions of at least $25 to Boswell for Congress, with hosts, sponsors and patrons donating at higher levels.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers attend this fundraiser, please put up a diary afterwards to let us know how it went, how big the crowd was, and anything interesting the speakers may have said.

I expect they will raise quite a lot of money for Boswell’s campaign this Saturday.

It’s been many months since we posted these regularly, and I want to restart the tradition.

Take the poll after the jump, and if you like, explain your vote in the comments section.

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that

The Senate voted 47-1 on Senate File 2347, which calls for the state to pay for new machines so that every county has machines with paper ballots that could be recounted after an election.

The plan calls for the state to buy one machine for each precinct that needs an equipment update.

This bill, which would cost the state about $8.6 million, is adapted from Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s sensible plan to make sure that every Iowan casts a vote on a paper ballot.

The bad news is that county officials are objecting to the bill’s provision that

County taxpayers would pick up the tab for shipping, software, testing of the machines, and all licensing fees. And some counties would need to buy special tables for certain machines.

Dubuque County, for example, would have to spend almost $100,000 of its own money up front, plus an extra $10,000 or so per year for storage, license fees and additional staff that would be needed to deliver the equipment in time for elections, said Tom O’Neill, Dubuque County’s deputy commissioner of elections.

Dubuque County bought 43 touch-screen machines two years ago to meet federal requirements for helping voters with disabilities. It wasn’t easy or cheap to train more than 300 pollworkers, many of whom are in their 60s and 70s, O’Neill said.

I have limited sympathy for these county officials. They never should have spent money on machines that lacked paper ballots. Touchscreen machines are at the very least an accident waiting to happen–who knows when a close race will need to be recounted? And in the worst-case scenario, touchscreen machines could be tampered with, possibly leading to the wrong candidate being declared the winner of an election.

Meanwhile, the Register noted that

Lawmakers today adopted an amendment that stemmed from Gov. Chet Culver’s demand for more oversight of Secretary of State Michael Mauro’s purchase of the equipment.

The amendment would require Mauro’s office to work in consultation with the Department of Administrative Services on the purchase. The department director, Mollie Anderson, reports directly to Culver. Mauro, as an elected official, doesn’t.

I trust Mike Mauro to handle this matter, but at the same time, I have no problem with this amendment, if that’s what was necessary to get Governor Culver on board with Mauro’s plan for replacing voting machines.

With any luck, the presidential race is not going to be as close this year as in 2000 and 2004, but we are likely to have some state legislative races decided by very small margins. I feel more confident knowing that in the event of a close race, there will be paper ballots to recount.

We don’t watch much tv, so I wasn’t aware of the ads that have apparently been running against Governor Culver since last summer. The Des Moines Register reports that the Iowa Future Fund has not disclosed its donors. A former GOP state director, David Kochel, is the only person who has acknowledged involvement with the fund’s ad campaign. The Register notes:

Iowa Future Fund has been running ads sporadically in Iowa since August, all criticizing Culver. The latest round accuses him of vastly increasing spending and criticizes him for signing a bill offering Microsoft tax incentives to locate a center in Iowa.

The group is registered with the Internal Revenue Service under chapter 501(c)(4), which allows it to advocate for or against legislation, but does not require it to disclose its contributors.

The Iowa Democratic Party recently asked the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board to determine whether the Iowa Future Fund’s ads are violating state law. Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan said at a press conference that the ad’s claims are not true, but the Register notes that “Iowa’s campaign law does not require ads be true.”

Brennan also said the fund broke the law by not filing disclosure reports, but it doesn’t sound like Democrats are going to be able to prove that these commercials trigger the disclosure requirements:

Charlie Smithson, Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board executive director, the ad must expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate in order for the board to have jurisdiction.

If anyone out there knows more about who is funding these ads, please drop me a line or post a comment.

I didn’t see this in the news, but just got an e-mail from the Iowa Planned Parenthood Action Network:

Thank You Governor Culver!

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Governor Culver recently announced that he will be “turning back” Federal funds that are restricted for “abstinence only” sexual and reproductive health education.

This action is a rejection of “abstinence only” in favor of comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education which includes abstinence.

Comprehensive sex education also includes birth control, sexually transmitted infections and other good sexual health practices that “abstinence only” neglects.  

Governor Culver’s rejection of the funds comes from the fact that “abstinence only” programs DO NOT WORK because they leave out information about what to do once you are sexually active.

Help us congratulate Governor Culver on his bold and strong leadership on returning Federal “abstinence only” funds!

Good for him. Taking the money would have been the politically easy route. Instead, he showed leadership on this issue.

If you want to sign up for Planned Parenthood action alerts, go here:

http://www.ppaction.org/ppiowa…

Governor Chet Culver has agreed to back Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s plan “to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots,” the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday:

Culver said he has put together a “working group” that includes Mauro, lawmakers and Culver’s staff. They will try to figure out how to get counties equipped with optical scan machines that count paper ballots – as he has long advocated for, he said.

Good for him. As I’ve written before, spending money on equipment that would print receipts for touchscreen voting machines would just throw good money after bad. Better to ensure that every Iowan votes with a paper ballot, which can be recounted if necessary.

Also on Friday, Culver endorsed incumbent Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district:

He called Boswell a “dear friend” whose military background is valuable on national security issues, although he said he respects Fallon and supports the idea of competitive political races.

Meanwhile, the Register tries to make news by noting that Culver has refused to rule out running for president someday.

Come on, reporters. He’s barely a year into his first term, and with any luck we’re about to elect a Democrat who will serve as president until 2012 or 2016. Let Culver get a term or two under his belt before you start asking him whether he’ll run for president.

Didn’t see this one coming. IowaCubs has the story on MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

Some people who are very close to the Culver family were involved with the Clinton campaign in Iowa, and of course Mari Culver endorsed Edwards in December.

Apparently Governor Culver will appear with Obama at a rally in Nebraska tonight.  

The Sunday edition of the Des Moines Register has a front-page story on the disagreement between Governor Chet Culver and Secretary of State Mike Mauro over Iowa’s voting machines. Key passage:

Meanwhile, each man is trying to drum up support for his own proposal for ensuring a paper trail for every voting machine in Iowa.

Mauro wants to spend $9.7 million to give every voter an actual paper ballot that could be recounted later.

Culver wants to spend only $2 million to equip touch-screen voting machines, which have electronic ballots, with a special printer that shows voters their choices on a continuous roll of paper.

In Mauro’s cheering section are watchdog groups, and some key lawmakers and county election officials of both political stripes.

Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity, a Fairfield-based citizens group, gave Culver’s plan a thumbs down.

“Paper printouts are better than no paper trail, but spending money on paper-trail printers is chasing good money after bad,” said Flaherty, of North Liberty. “No one respects these printers, and it is likely that Congress will ban them in the near future.”

Culver blasted the more expensive plan last week.

“Money does not grow on trees around here,” he said in an interview. “The idea that we could come up with $9 million right now is a pipe dream. It’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise.”

Mauro has said he would pay for his plan for optical scan machines and ballot-marking devices with $3.7 million already earmarked, and by paying the voting equipment vendor the remaining $6 million on installment over the next three years.

As I’ve written before, I agree with Mauro on this issue. I lack confidence in the technology that would attach paper receipts to touchscreen machines, and such a fix would probably be throwing good money after bad, since the federal government may outlaw touchscreen machines in the next few years.

You can find more background on the issue, as well as persuasive arguments in favor of paper ballots, at the Iowa Voters site, which is dedicated to “open and transparent elections.”

Speaking of federal legislation, if you check out Blog for Iowa, Susannah Goodman of Common Cause and Jerry Depew of Iowa Voters have information on an important bill proposed by Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey (H.R. 5036, the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008).

While no voting system is error-free, the recent recount of the New Hampshire primary results showed that the error rate for optical-scanner precincts was very low.

At some point we need to bite the bullet and spend the money necessary to get optical scanners in all the Iowa counties. In the event of another very close election, we need to have real paper ballots to recount.

I would also support hand recounts of a few precincts (randomly chosen) afer every state election. Apparently a bill to that effect is under consideration in the New Hampshire legislature. I don’t know if anyone has proposed a similar bill in Iowa before.

Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley is being strongly urged by his top energy advisor to take aggressive steps to cut energy consumption, and the state should create a multimillion-dollar fund to give homeowners an array of incentives to use less power.

The blueprint, to be released by the Maryland Energy Administration, will offer 20 proposals to help O'Malley (D) deliver on his ambitious pledge to reduce the state's energy consumption by 15 percent in seven years and stave off rolling blackouts that experts predict could occur in three years.

The report recommends that the state encourage the fledgling solar and wind energy industries to invest in the region and help Maryland more than double its use of renewable power.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver has been a proponent of renewable energy, creating the Iowa Power Fund, the Iowa Office of Energy Independence, and saying he wants Iowa to become the renewable energy capital of the world.

Culver has made a goal for Iowa to produce enough wind energy by 2015 to power 500,000 homes and cut carbon emissions by more than 7 billion tons per year. It seems that a program like the one in Maryland would help Culver and Iowans reach this goal.

Instead there are plans to build coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo that would emit more carbon into the air.

If Culver was serious about making Iowa into the renewable energy capital, one would think he would be stressing cutting energy use.

Just back from the press conference at IDP Headquarters with Gov. Chet Culver, Secretary of State Mike Mauro, and IDP Chair Scott Brennan.  Culver made sure to emphasize that Iowa Democrats were still planning for January 14th precinct caucuses, but admitted the situation is and remains fluid, with a lot running on New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s decision when to hold his state’s primary, which by state law must happen seven days before any other primary.  Iowa state law says that Iowa’s caucuses must occur eight days before any other state selection process.

Culver started out the conference by announcing to Iowans that Christmas is going to happen in this state and that he expects to have the caucuses on January 14th.  Culver also said:

“We’re confident that work with our friends in New Hampshire, the Iowa Democratic Party, and the Democratic National Committee that Iowa is going to hold the lead-off caucus here.”

Obviously the situation is fluid, but nothing has changed the dates between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Until New Hampshire makes a change, we’re scheduled for January 14th.  We’re not interested in going in December.”

That appears to backtrack a bit from statements Culver made on Wednesday before Kay Henderson and other reporters when the rumors first began emerging that the South Carolina GOP would move their state primary to Jan. 19th, three days before New Hampshire’s scheduled (by the DNC) Jan. 22 primary.  Here’s what Culver said then:

“Would it be odd, having the Caucuses before Christmas?

“It’s challenging to get the Caucuses done period.  It requires a lot of work but I do know that Iowans are excited about participating in this presidential selection process and I don’t think as long as we give appropriate notice in timing that the date matters a whole lot.  We just need to get it set and hopefully, it’ll be the 14th.  If not, we’ll do what we have to do to keep the state first,” Culver said.”

Clearly, in the exchange with Henderson and others Culver indicated a preference and emphasis on the Jan. 14th date but by saying that date didn’t matter a whole lot.  The remarks above prompted Chase Martyn to call Culver out on his blog.

Yesterday Culver’s office issued a statement clarifying his support for the January date and today’s conference seemed to be a clear indication that he’s stepping aside — to some degree — to let the state Democratic party handle the matter, as is their prerogative and obligation.  As Secretary of State Mauro said today, the parties are the ones who control the caucuses, not the state government or the secretary of state’s office, as they do with regular elections.

A few other tid-bits from the presser.  Chairman Brennan did say he had been in touch with the Republican Party of Iowa about the situation, but said they were — as expected — a bit more focused on the Ames straw poll fundraiser tomorrow.  He also put the onus on New Hampshire in terms of defining how the Iowa Caucuses could play out with the Democrats and Republicans holding their caucuses on separate nights, as had been the tradition before 1980.  David Yepsen was the one who posed the question to Brennan and he said:

“New Hampshire will drive that.”

He emphasized that the tradition was to have the caucuses on the same nights, but there was no overall commitment to caucuses on the same nights if push came to shove.  That could make the caucuses even more of a spectacle with Democrats and Republicans crossing over into the opposite parties’ caucuses to pick the weaker or ‘crazier’ nominee.

Finally, the highlight of the conference for myself and Patrick Stansberry from Common Iowan, was a question from a reporter for WHO Radio asking if Culver “blamed the blogosphere for the speculation that Iowa’s caucuses might take place in December?”

Culver’s response was “Not at all.”  Thanks, Governor. 🙂

I've been somewhat critical of the Culver administration when it comes to environmental issues, but I'm proud of Chet Culver upon reading this release that came to me on the Sierra Club e-mail list:

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Governor Chet Culver « Lt. Governor Patty Judge
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2007

Contact: Brad Anderson
 (515) 281-0173

 

GOVERNOR CULVER APPOINTS NEW EPC BOARD MEMBER

 

PAUL JOHNSON NAMED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION

(Des Moines)  Today, Governor Chet Culver appointed Paul Johnson of Decorah to the Environmental Protection Commission.  The EPC is a panel of nine citizens who provide policy oversight of Iowa's environmental protection efforts. EPC members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by vote of the Senate for four year terms.

“Paul is a family farmer who will bring valuable experience to this important Board,” said Governor Culver.  As Governor, I am committed to improving water quality and protecting the land, lakes, rivers and streams we all love.  I am confident Paul will make a valuable contribution to the EPC’s efforts to protect Iowa’s environment.”

PAUL JOHNSON – Paul Johnson holds a BS (1966) and MS (1969) in Forestry from the University of Michigan and an honorary doctorate from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. His international experience spans Peace Corps service in Ghana, West Africa (1962-4), forestry teaching in Ghana (1967-68), doctoral research in tropical forest ecology in Costa Rica (1969, 1970, 1971), co-directorship of the Luther College Nottingham Year (1980-81) in Nottingham, England and numerous educational and research visits to countries such as Sweden and the former Soviet Union.

Since 1974, Paul and his family have owned and operated Oneota Slopes Farm near Decorah, Iowa. Their farm has included dairy, corn, soybeans, hay, beef cattle, sheep and Christmas trees.
 
Paul's distinguished public service career includes three terms in the Iowa State Legislature (1984-1990) during which he co-authored the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, the 1989 Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) and the 1990 Iowa Energy Act. In addition, Paul served as Chief of the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) at the United States Department of Agriculture from 1993-1997 and as Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources from 1999-2000.
Additional service includes two terms on the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture (1988-1993) and participation on numerous foundation boards including the Aldo Leopold Foundation. He has been the recipient of many awards over his years of public service, among them the prestigious Hugh Hammond Bennett Conservation Award from the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America.

Earlier this year Culver appointed four new commissioners to the EPC: Dale Cochran, Ralph Klemme, Charlotte Hubbell and Susan Heathcote. I heard later that one of men would be unable to serve because it turned out that he was not currently farming (at least one, possibly two of the four commissioner positions is reserved for a farmer). I don't know if that was Cochran or Klemme.

In any case, Paul Johnson is an outstanding environmentalist and a good Democrat too (he ran against Latham in the 4th District a few years back). 

Now that the legislative session is over, it’s time to put up another set of these leadership polls.

Take the poll, and elaborate on your opinion in the comments section if you like.

I feel compelled to defend Chris Dodd after reading this post on Radio Iowa. (Hat tip Deeth).

Radio Iowa notes that Dodd keeps telling the same joke at every campaign stop about being the only guy in the race who gets mailings from both the AARP and diaper services. After seeing Dodd speak before a group of young Democrats, Radio Iowa had a chance to ask a question:

As Dodd was walking out of the restaurant where he had just given his 20-minute speech, followed by about 20 minutes of answering questions, I began asking about the joke.  “You always tell that joke about the AARP and diaper services,” I started.

“They hadn’t heard it,” Dodd quickly interrupted, referencing his noon-time audience.

“But I’m wondering how a guy tells a joke like that, obviously exhibiting that he has the coin for a diaper service, and how he squares that with his discussion of how the middle class is being pinched,” I continued.

“It was a joke,” Dodd said.  He laughed and walked away.

Cut the guy some slack–every candidate gives basically the same stump speech, including the same jokes, at every campaign stop.

I must have heard Chet Culver’s joke about his daughter and the letter-carriers’ endorsement half a dozen times last year. (Short version: Chet is tucking in his daughter, going through the bedtime ritual of talking about something nice that happened that day. Chet mentions that he got endorsed by the Letter-Carriers’ association. Daughter asks what that means. Chet says it means the people who deliver the mail are going to vote for him. Daughter asks, “Even the guy who delivers Nussle’s mail?”)

John Edwards has talked about being the son of a mill worker so many times that he added a joke to his stump speech about how the audience may have heard once that he is the son of a mill worker.

Now, if Radio Iowa’s complaint is that people in Iowa don’t use diaper services and can’t relate to the joke, that’s partly true, at least concerning young voters. As a mom of two kids in cloth diapers, I can confirm that there are no cloth diaper laundry services in Iowa (only some cloth diaper sellers, like this one and this one).

If Radio Iowa’s complaint is that someone who can afford a diaper service may seem out of touch with middle-class concerns, I disagree. People who remember the days of diaper services could tell you that they were affordable for middle-class families. It wasn’t a luxury service that only the wealthy used.

On the contrary, wealthier people were among the first to start using disposable diapers when they became more widely available in the 1960s. Plenty of parents from an older generation have told me that they couldn’t afford disposable diapers when their kids were babies.

But I digress. Please don’t hassle candidates for telling the same jokes over and over this year.

And if you’ve got babies or are planning to have babies in the future, be aware of the environmental and health benefits, not to mention the cost savings, of using cloth diapers. If you want to learn more, click here for the Real Diaper Association website.

Or, if you live in central Iowa, e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com and I will tell you when and where the monthly “cloth diaper crowd” meets.

As an environmentalist and supporter of Ed Fallon for governor, I was deeply concerned when Chet Culver selected Patty Judge to be his running mate. During her tenure as secretary of agriculture, Patty Judge never stood up to the Farm Bureau on any issue that I was aware of.

Instead of advocating for sustainable agriculture and family farmers, she was a mouthpiece for the corporate ag lobby that has too big a voice in Iowa politics already.

As governor, Chet Culver has mostly exceeded my expectations. I didn’t even mind too much that he replaced Jeff Vonk at the DNR, because the new DNR head, Rich Leopold, is a strong environmentalist.

However, my worst fears about Patty Judge’s influence have been realized with the recent changes to the Environmental Protection Commission.

Voting field in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Iowa Governor Chet Culver is doing his job?

I’ll openly admit this is me copying Markos’s work over at Daily Kos, but I think that if we started doing leadership polling in the Iowa blogosphere, we can start to determine just how responsive our Democratic leaders are to the concerns of the people at the grassroots and netroots level in Iowa.  While at the early stages these polls will likely not mean a lot (only 40 or so votes for each position isn’t scientific nor fairly representative) I think that the results could help us hone in on the leaders we feel are problematic or less than responsive.

In my eyes, doing polls on Governor Culver, Speaker of the House Pat Murphy, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, and IDP Chairman Scott Brennan would be the best way to look at and judge the leadership of the Iowa Democratic Party at the Executive and Legislative level.  Going beyond five different leadership polls begins to dilute the polling, in my opinion, and would be pushed off the front page too quickly.

What are your thoughts?  Depending on the comments, I’m likely going to put the polls up by the end of the week.  Oh, and to start off measuring support, make sure to take the poll in the extended entry.

The Register had the story this morning that Governor Culver would be signing the minimum wage increase this afternoon, that would incrimentaly raise it to $7.25/hr by January 2008.

I just got back from the Captiol about half an hour ago after attending the signing and it was very gratifying to see the Governor (GOVERNOR CULVER!!) sign his first bill into law. Also amazing was the support of the both Houses; 79-19 in the House and 40-8 to give a raise to over 100,000 hard working Iowans.

Also, happy birthday to Governor Culver, as he turns 41 today.