Nearly a year after a nationwide working group of state attorneys general began investigating foreclosure fraud, settlement talks between Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s team and major lenders appear to be virtually irrelevant. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is the latest and most important state official to abandon the working group.

Not long ago, Yves Smith predicted that the proposed settlement between large mortgage lenders and state attorneys general was “likely to fall apart.” This week’s developments may prove her right.  

Representative Steve King is demanding Congressional hearings on what he described as the Obama administration’s new policy of “executive amnesty to illegal aliens.” My only question is, what took him so long?

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller kicked his New York counterpart Eric Schneiderman off the executive committee for the 50-state working group on foreclosure fraud yesterday. As leader of the working group created last October, Miller has drawn criticism for negotiating lenient terms for major lenders and not investigating some shady foreclosure practices. His latest move is another sign that Miller leans toward terms favored by banks and their Obama administration allies.  

The battle of the incumbents in Iowa’s third Congressional district will be one of the most closely-watched House races in the country in 2012. Yesterday Karl Rove’s 501(c)4 group Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies launched a television commercial targeting eight-term Democrat Leonard Boswell. Similar spots went up against nine other Democratic incumbents, part of a $20 million summer advertising campaign by Crossroads.

Meanwhile, local media have devoted heavy coverage to the reported break-in attempt at Boswell’s southern Iowa farm on Saturday night. The latest comments from Boswell, his wife Dody Boswell, and law enforcement officers are after the jump, along with the Crossroads ad and annotated transcript.

UPDATE: Law enforcement officers have arrested two suspects in the break-in. Details are at the end of this post, along with statements from Leonard and Dody Boswell.

A grand jury indicted former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on June 3 on six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and false statements. Read the federal government’s case against Johnny Reid Edwards here (pdf). The charges revolve around more than $900,000 used to support Edwards’ mistress and a campaign staffer who claimed paternity of Edwards’ child. Prosecutors say that money, provided by the late Fred Baron and the heiress Bunny Mellon, should have been considered campaign contributions, in which case they were way over the legal limit for a presidential campaign.

Edwards looks ready to fight the charges in court. He told journalists in a brief statement that he “did wrong” but “did not break the law” and “never ever thought that I was breaking the law.” Federal election law is unusual in that violations are only considered criminal if the offending politician knew he or she was committing a crime. So prosecutors will have to prove that the gifts in question should be considered campaign contributions, that Baron and Mellon would not have made those gifts if Edwards had not been a candidate, and that Edwards knew he was breaking the law by submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission. Edwards will contend that he had a longstanding friendship with Baron (who is deceased) and Mellon, and that they would have helped him conceal his extramarital affair from his family in any case.

So far legal analysts aren’t impressed by the prosecution’s case: see comments from Richard Pildes, Rick Hasen and Jeralyn Merritt. A 2002 FEC opinion involving a $25,000 loan to pay a divorce lawyer representing a member of Congress may support the Edwards defense. Looks like Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 was right to say Edwards should wait to see the indictment rather than cut a deal with prosecutors.

The Washington Post editorial board (never fans of Edwards) criticized the “novel application of the law” underlying this prosecution, adding, “It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.” Considering that no one has been prosecuted for systemic foreclosure fraud, making torture official U.S. policy or various other abuses, one does wonder why the Department of Justice has gone down this path. My theory is that the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is looking for a popular case to boost a future political career. The DOJ doesn’t mind the media circus and may even welcome the distraction from more pressing national issues.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend? Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age will remember Lawrence Eagleburger and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who both passed away this week.

UPDATE: J. Andrew Curliss and Joseph Neff report more details about the plea bargaining negotiations preceding the Edwards indictments. Merritt thinks Edwards was right to turn down the government’s offers and predicts that there will be further negotiations before court proceedings begin.

James Hill of ABC News reported this week,

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned. […]

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Some unnamed sources suggest Edwards’ legal team is working on a plea agreement so that he would not have to stand trial. But a high-powered attorney for Edwards, former White House counsel Greg Craig, sounds ready to fight, asserting that “not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved,” there is “no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution,” and the “Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.” Ben Smith reports for Politico that Craig

is said to be pushing for a trial and arguing that prosecutors will not be able to win in the vague and untested terrain of campaign-finance law – as he made clear in a defiant statement to reporters Wednesday. Edwards’s longtime friend and lawyer Wade Smith, a fellow veteran of the North Carolina courts, is said to be more inclined to settle. And Edwards himself appears, associates say, to be sorely tempted to take his chances in an arena that made his career and his fortune.

“John needs money. He needs to work, so he can’t give up his law license,” said a source who knows Edwards but who requested anonymity. “He thinks, ‘I get in that courtroom, I get in front of a North Carolina jury…’ “

For the sake of Edwards’ three children under age 18, I would advise him to settle in order to avoid jail time. But I don’t know the legal terrain and have no idea what his chances would be to escape conviction. If conducting an affair during a presidential campaign is any guide, Edwards isn’t risk-averse. Then again, Craig may just be posturing to negotiate a better plea deal for his client.

As far as I know, the money allegedly used to cover up Edwards’ affair came from large donations to his One America Committee (a PAC)–not his 2008 presidential campaign funds. I don’t know whether that makes any difference as a point of law.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt discusses the case here:

If the U.S. Attorney is demanding a plea to a felony count, I suspect John Edwards will fight. I hope he does. Regardless of your opinion of John Edwards and his personal life, he’s the sole parent now to two young children. Mistreating a donation as a gift (particularly if you relied on the advice of your legal counsel in doing so), when there is a paucity of court decisions defining the difference between them, seems over the top.

If Edwards is offering to plead to a misdemeanor and probation, the Government should grab his proffered ounce of flesh and forego insisting on a pound. The only reason to demand a felony is to justify the cost of the Government’s absurdly lengthy and intrusive investigation.

Jan Crawford reports for CBS News on the arguments underpinning a potential Edwards defense:

Edwards’ legal team argues that the prosecution’s theory is unprecedented and wrong. They say there is only one case involving gifts to federal candidates that’s even remotely comparable — and it not only is distinguishable, but also was merely an advisory opinion by the FEC that never has been cited as authority for a criminal prosecution.

In that case, the FEC said a proposed gift to a federal candidate was illegal because the donor wouldn’t have made it if the candidate weren’t running for office. Edwards, on the other hand, had long-standing personal relationships with donors Fred Baron and Bunny Mellon that continued after he withdrew from the race. In fact, Edwards had lunch with Mellon on Thursday.

State Representative and Iowa House Education Committee Chair Greg Forristall (district 98) created an unfortunate teachable moment yesterday. A Pottawattamie County deputy stopped Forristall’s vehicle after seeing him drive uphill on the wrong side of Iowa Highway 92, nearly causing a head-on collision:

Forristall told the officer he had consumed some gin earlier in the day. Nearly two hours after being stopped, his blood alcohol content was .276, more than three times the legal limit, according to sheriff officials.

The deputy seized a bottle of gin that was nearly ¾ full from Forristall’s vehicle. He was arrested on a charge of driving while intoxicated, cited for driving on the wrong side of the road and released later on a $1,000 bond.

Forristall issued a statement apologizing to “my family, friends and constituents,” adding that “I fully accept the consequences of my actions.”

I doubt this incident will end his political career. Last year, Republican State Representative Erik Helland (district 69) didn’t draw any general-election opponent despite a drunk driving arrest in the summer. There weren’t many write-in votes against Helland, and he was named House majority whip after the November election.

House district 98, covering Mills County and part of Pottawattamie, is so heavily Republican that Forristall hasn’t had a Democratic opponent the last two general elections. Redistricting put him in the new House district 22, covering most of Pottawattamie outside Council Bluffs. The district has a huge Republican voter registration advantage.

Iowa politicians from both parties have been arrested for drunk driving in recent years. It should not be so difficult for lawmakers to ask someone else for a ride when they feel like drinking, especially if they have had enough to reach a blood alcohol level of 0.276. That level can cause “severe motor impairment” and/or loss of consciousness. It’s lucky that no one was injured before the officer stopped Forristall.

On his first day back in office, Governor Terry Branstad rescinded Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2005 executive order on felon voting rights as well as Governor Chet Culver’s 2010 order on project labor agreements. By prohibiting project labor agreements on public works projects involving state funds (executive order 69), Branstad will drive down wages and help contractors that don’t hire unionized workers.

Branstad defended his voting rights directive (executive order 70) as a way to protect crime victims while recouping more fines and court costs. However, the main impact will be to shrink the Iowa electorate. Follow me after the jump for more background and analysis.  

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller spoke out this week about changes attorneys general and bank regulators will seek in order to resolve major problems in the banking and mortgage servicing industry. Miller has led the national mortgage foreclosure working group since October. He discussed the investigation and possible terms of a settlement in a recent Des Moines Register interview and in a December 14 meeting with advocates for reform to reduce foreclosures and compensate homeowners.

Miller’s remarks suggest the settlement will focus on ending all “robo-signing” practices, increasing the number of loan modifications and reducing principal to help keep people in their homes. The investigation may lead to criminal prosecutions as well. More details are after the jump.

Earlier this year, the Democratic-controlled Iowa legislature passed one of the loosest “shall issue” gun permit laws in the country. The bill appeared to have died in the legislature’s “funnel”, but Democratic leaders revived it, and the final version passed both chambers by wide margins. Democrats presumably thought supporting the top legislative priority of the National Rifle Assocation would save many of their vulnerable incumbents. But even though the NRA endorsed Governor Chet Culver and many Democratic lawmakers, Republicans made huge gains in Iowa last month.

Now the NRA plans “a major push for expanded gun rights in Iowa,” Jennifer Jacobs reported in today’s Des Moines Register. The organization’s priorities for the 2011 legislative session are listed after the jump.

Exactly one week before election day, State Auditor David Vaudt released his report on Iowa’s film tax credit program, which Governor Chet Culver halted in September 2009. The audit found problems with about $26 million of the $32 million in tax credits awarded under the program. The Des Moines Register summarized the key findings and covered the civil and criminal cases filed so far in connection with fraudulent film tax credits.

Getting this fiasco back in the spotlight is likely to hurt Culver and help GOP candidate Terry Branstad, whom Vaudt has endorsed and joined on the stump. Branstad’s campaign seized on the chance to slam inadequate oversight of the film tax credit program. Vaudt probably also benefits from making news just before voters will see his name on the ballot. The audit featured prominently in newscasts on October 26 and was a front-page story in many Iowa newspapers the following day. According to Radio Iowa,

Vaudt, a Republican, was asked about the timing of the release of the report the week before the election.

Vaudt says the governor actually requested the investigation, and his office worked in collaboration with the Department of Revenue and the Attorney General’s office. Vaudt says they handled this report like any other and released it once the report was completed.

More like two months after completing the report. Radio Iowa posted the full report here (pdf file). On page 6, a cover letter from Vaudt and his chief deputy, Warren Jenkins, states, “Copies of this report have been filed with the Department of Management, the Division of Criminal Investigation, the Attorney General’s Office and the Polk County Attorney’s Office.” That letter was dated August 19, 2010. What’s Vaudt’s excuse for waiting nearly ten weeks to release the report to journalists?

Culver told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, “The timing is interesting. It was purely political but [Vaudt]’s been the most partisan auditor that we’ve ever had so it’s not a surprise.” Scott Harrington, campaign manager for Democratic candidate for state auditor Jon Murphy, on 26 October asked Vaudt “to provide a detailed timeline as to how today was determined to be the appropriate date to release this report.” I’m not holding my breath until that happens.

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

My transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Representative Erik Helland was arrested early this morning and charged with operating while intoxicated and interference with official acts, KCCI-TV reported. After a driver in a different vehicle called 911 to report Helland’s erratic driving,

A trooper and Johnston police stopped the vehicle at Merle Hay Road at 12:47 a.m.

Officials said Helland submitted to a preliminary breath screening test, which indicated an alcohol concentration of .08 or more. At 2:21 a.m., he exercised his right to refuse chemical testing.

First-term Republican Helland represents Iowa House district 69, covering most of Johnston, Grimes, and much of rural northern Polk County. From the sound of this statement Helland released, he won’t be fighting the charge:

“I deeply regret the mistake I made to drink and drive. I apologize to my family, constituents, colleagues and all Iowans for the harmful and dangerous error that I made. I fully accept the consequences of my actions and am truly sorry. “

No Democrat filed to challenge Helland, so he is likely to ride out this scandal even if convicted of drunk driving. Democratic State Representative Kerry Burt was arrested on an OWI in early 2009. His political career might have survived if not for a separate incident that led to criminal charges, prompting Burt to retire from Iowa House district 21.

In December, the Obama administration signaled its intention to move some federal prisoners as well as detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton, Iowa.

However, on May 19 the House Armed Services Committee “unanimously approved a defense bill for 2011 that bans spending money to build or modify any facility inside the United States to house Guantánamo detainees,” the New York Times reported.

At TalkLeft, Jeralyn posted an excerpt from the bill summary:

The Committee firmly believes that the construction or modification of any facility in the U.S. to detain or imprison individuals currently being held at Guantanamo must be accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility. No such plan has been presented to date. The bill prohibits the use of any funds for this purpose. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to present Congress with a report that adequately justifies any proposal to build or modify such a facility in the future.

Last fall prominent Iowa Republicans fanned fears about terrorists in the heartland as a political weapon against President Obama and Representative Bruce Braley, who represents the Iowa counties closest to Thomson, Illinois. At the time, Braley expressed support for the plan to convert the Illinois facility, saying his constituents “have told me with a resounding voice they want these jobs to come to their area.” Some jobs will almost certainly come to the area in 2011 or 2012, because the federal government still plans to purchase and renovate the Thomson Correctional Center to use for federal prisoners, with or without detainees from Guantanamo.

Iowa Democrats Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are among the 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee. I don’t know whether they were present at Wednesday’s meeting, where the defense authorization bill passed by a 59 to 0 vote.

How many more tragedies need to happen before elected officials have the guts to close the gun show loophole? The latest high-profile beneficiary of this loophole was the mentally ill attacker in the recent shootings near the Pentagon.

Law enforcement officials say [John Patrick] Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell’s purchase.

Republican politicians fall all over themselves trying to prove how loyal they are to the National Rifle Association. Some are against any kind of background checks for people who want to carry firearms in public. Too many Democrats are afraid to stand up to this NRA-approved extremism. Meanwhile, a Republican pollster’s recent survey of gun owners shows that they understand the need for reasonable limits:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

Fortunately, it looks as if a proposal to make it easier for Iowans to carry concealed weapons is unlikely to advance during this year’s legislative session. That bill’s main advocate is Iowa House Republican Clel Baudler. He serves on the NRA’s board and doesn’t even support steps to remove guns from domestic abusers. (Last fall, Baudler suggested that murder victim Tereseann Lynch Moore might not have been killed by her estranged husband if she had been carrying her own gun.) Not that Baudler is an isolated case; a disturbing number of Iowa Republican legislators opposed a recent bill to get guns out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers and people subject to a restraining order.

CORRECTION: I spoke too soon above. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have idiotically revived the NRA’s pet bill, which “would give Iowa one of the loosest gun-permit laws in the country.” Bad for public safety, bad politics. No one who wants to increase the number of Iowans carrying concealed weapons is going to vote for Democrats.

The good news is, an important public safety bill went to Governor Chet Culver’s desk on March 11. Senate File 2357 was one of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s legislative priorities this year. The bill prohibits Iowans from owning guns and ammunition if they have been convicted of a domestic violence crime or are subject to a protective order. Since 1995, 205 Iowans have been killed in domestic violence incidents; that figure represents nearly one-third of all murders recorded in Iowa during that period. Miller has also pointed out that firearms caused 111 of the 205 Iowa deaths in domestic abuse murders since 1995. Moreover, firearms were involved in nearly two-thirds of Iowa’s domestic violence deaths in 2007 and 2008. Records show 46 of the 205 Iowans killed in domestic abuse murders since 1995 have been bystanders. It’s easier to kill a bystander with a gun than with a knife or other weapon.

Federal law already bans those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a protective order from owning a gun. However, the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has noted,

We need additional state law so that local law enforcement officers have the legal authority help enforce the firearm ban. Without additional state law there are only two ATF agents in the entire state who can act to enforce the federal law […] Without local law enforcement involved abusers will not and are not abiding by the federal firearms ban.  

Various law enforcement entities backed SF 2357, but most Republicans in the Iowa legislature didn’t cooperate with this effort to address a major violent crime problem. While Republicans were unable to defeat the bill, their votes on the Senate and House floor showed more deference to extremist gun advocates than to the potential victims of domestic abusers.

Eleven of the 18 Iowa Senate Republicans voted against SF 2357 when the upper chamber approved it on February 25, and a twelfth Republican joined them when the Senate considered an amended version on March 11. Roll calls can be found in pdf files for the Senate Journal on those dates. Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and third-district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun were among the Republicans who voted no.

The March 10 Iowa House debate on SF 2357 exposed even more disturbing aspects of Republican “family values.” House Republicans voted unanimously to inject the same-sex marriage debate into this unrelated bill.

Then they voted unanimously to add a provision that might deter victims from seeking a protective order.

Then all but one of them voted to help domestic abusers get their guns back more quickly.

Then they unanimously supported language to give abuse victims access to self-defense courses, as if that’s the real solution to the domestic violence problem.

Then more than half the Republican caucus voted against the final bill.

The gory details can be found here; highlights are after the jump.

The Iowa Legislature has been moving at an unusually fast pace during the shortened 2010 session. It’s time to catch up on what’s happened at the statehouse over the past three weeks. From here on out I will try to post a legislative roundup at the end of every week.

February 12 was the first “funnel” deadline. In order to have a chance of moving forward in 2010, all legislation except for tax and appropriations bills must have cleared at least one Iowa House or Senate committee by the end of last Friday.

After the jump I’ve included links on lots of bills that have passed or are still under consideration, as well as bills I took an interest in that failed to clear the funnel. I have grouped bills by subject area. This post is not an exhaustive list; way too many bills are under consideration for me to discuss them all. I recommend this funnel day roundup by Rod Boshart for the Mason City Globe-Gazette.

Note: the Iowa legislature’s second funnel deadline is coming up on March 5. To remain alive after that point, all bills except tax and appropriations bills must have been approved by either the full House or Senate and by a committee in the opposite chamber. Many bills that cleared the first funnel week will die in the second.  

Written by Amie Newman for RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

When anti-choice advocates dream up and manage to pass bills in the name of being “pro-life,” make no mistake – there is no question they know that these laws have the potential to ruin lives.

In the case of Christine Taylor, an Iowa mother of two girls and pregnant with her third child, a feticide law enacted in that state because of anti-choice efforts has wreaked havoc on her life.

It all started last month, according to Change.org:

Last month, after an upsetting phone conversation with her estranged husband, Ms. Taylor became light-headed and fell down a flight of stairs in her home. Paramedics rushed to the scene and ultimately declared her healthy. However, since she was pregnant with her third child at the time, Taylor thought it would be best to be seen at the local ER to make sure her fetus was unharmed.

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office filed the first criminal charges in connection with the film tax credit scandal today.

Tom Wheeler, who stepped down in September as manager of the office, faces a charge of non-felonious misconduct in office. Wheeler, 41, is accused of failing to verify the eligibility of applicants for the state’s film tax credit program.

Also charged is Wendy Weiner Runge, who was executive producer of a 2008 film, “The Scientist.” Runge is charged with first degree theft and is accused of taking property belonging to the state of Iowa by unlawfully reporting inflated values on applications for tax credits.

UPDATE: A later version of the Des Moines Register story noted that charges have also been filed against “Matthias Alexander Saunders, another business owner and photography director; and three limited liability corporations tied to the movie [“The Scientist”].”

The Attorney General’s Office press statement is here, and on that page you can download documents related to the charges filed. Governor Chet Culver fired Wheeler shortly after the scandal broke last September. Iowa Department of Economic Development Director Mike Tramontina and deputy director Vincent Lintz both resigned.

It sounds as if Wheeler’s attorney will be Gordon Fischer, a name familiar to many Iowa Democrats. WHO-TV journalist Dave Price posted a statement from Fischer at the Price of Politics blog. Excerpt:

We are disappointed with the Attorney General’s decision to file criminal charges under the facts and circumstances of the situation as we know them. The state has decided to pursue a novel theory of criminal liability and it is our position that their decision is a mistake that is not supported by the facts or the law. However, because they have chosen this path, Tom’s focus must now necessarily shift from trying to help the state develop a functional, and economically beneficial, tax incentive program to defending against the criminal charges. Because of this shift in focus, we will need time to review the state’s charging documents before anyone can make specific comments about the facts underlying the Attorney General’s allegations.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register published more comments from Wheeler’s advocate:

Gordon Fischer, whom Wheeler hired shortly after a multi-agency investigation began in September, said the state was making Wheeler the fall guy for poor oversight of a program overrun with applications.

“It’s really, really disappointing that they made the decision to try to criminalize this,” Fischer said. Wheeler, he said, “continually raised to his supervisors that the workload was very heavy (inside the firm office), and he was doing the best he could with limited resources.”

The Iowa legislature is likely to eliminate the state film tax credit this session. Last week Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson wrote a good column at InsiderIowa.com about why this program was flawed from the start:

An ad hoc cabal of arts boosters, state and local economic developers, impressionable legislators, and an uncritical me-too response to other states’ attempts in this extremely iffy arena led to what was proudly billed as half-price film making in Iowa.  That is, incredibly, 50 percent of qualifying in-state film-making expenditures could be claimed as state income tax credits.  And even if you didn’t generate enough economic activity to use the credits, you could sell them on the secondary market to some other Iowa company that wanted to lower their state taxes.

It was a fiasco on three fronts. First, the grant of a fully-refundable credit on 50 percent of costs was fiscally unsustainable, legislatively irresponsible, and set the stage for the documented abuses that occurred. Second, Iowa does not have the population, talent, geography, climate, visual amenities, and the whole array of agglomerations that would support a meaningful and sustainable year-round film industry. It never will. And third, the creative economy, as in arts and entertainment, will not be a leading driver of the Iowa economy because they all had it backwards:  arts and entertainment clusters of the kind described by Mr. [Richard] Florida [author of The Rise of the Creative Class] are a result of other economic growth not the cause.

Iowa does not have a Hollywood, Nashville, Taos, Santa Fe, Austin, Memphis, or even Branson to build from.  Iowa is farms, biotechnology research and development, manufacturing, finance and insurance, health care, and universities.  Those are Iowa’s key industries, and the creative content of many of those industries is quite high.  They are full of biologists, agronomists, actuaries, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, computer scientists, and other physical, medical, and social scientists.  That is Iowa’s creative economy, and that is the portion of the state that will drive most job growth and innovation in the next decade.  It has art and cultural centers, but no art and cultural centers that are driving regional or statewide growth in other industries.

The film tax credit will end up costing Iowa taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. It’s a costly reminder that consensus ideas aren’t always good ideas.  

After deliberating for less than an hour, a Kansas jury found anti-abortion fanatic Scott Roeder guilty of first degree murder for shooting Dr. George Tiller in church last May. Roeder admitted killing Tiller and will be sentenced in March. Prosecutors are seeking a 50-year sentence with no possibility for parole. If Roeder is sentenced to life in prison, he could be eligible for parole in 25 years. During the trial,

[Sedgwick County District Judge Warren] Wilbert had barred Roeder from using a so-called necessity defense, aiming for an acquittal by arguing that the killing was necessary to prevent a greater harm – killing babies. But the judge allowed Roeder to present evidence that he sincerely believed his actions were justified to save unborn children – a defense that could have led to a conviction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.

On Thursday afternoon, however, Wilbert ruled that he would not give jurors the option of considering a voluntary manslaughter conviction, because such a defense requires that a person must be stopping the imminent use of unlawful force.

Unfortunately, Roeder succeeded in shutting down Tiller’s clinic, one of very few facilities where women could receive late-term abortions. Contrary to the propaganda you may have heard from the anti-choice movement, women seeking care from Dr. Tiller didn’t just casually decide during the second or third trimester that they didn’t feel like having children.

Kansas state law allows abortions on viable fetuses after the 21st week only if carrying the pregnancy to term would endanger the mother’s life or cause a “substantial and irreversible impairment” of a major bodily function. Courts have interpreted a “major bodily function” to include mental health.

Amanda Marcotte wrote before Tiller was murdered,

The argument for attacking Tiller is that he performs late term abortions, which are supposedly worse than early term ones, even though anti-choicers claim that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 5-year-old child, so that shows that their targeting of late term providers is cynical politicking on its face.  But if you actually bother to look at why women get late term abortions, the targeting Dr. Tiller becomes even more horrifying.  Generally speaking, you’re talking about women who really wanted to have a baby, but who can’t have this one, because something is wrong with her health or that of the fetus.  Because of the sensitive nature of the situation, Dr. Tiller’s office offers a great deal of counseling services to their patients, who are often suffering trauma because of what’s happening to them.  In addition to counseling, there are baptism and funerary services, as well as photographing and footprinting, for people who want to say goodbye to the baby that they expected to have but couldn’t.  The levels of hate projected at Dr. Tiller are directly proportional to the levels of care he shows for women during this rough period of their lives.

Although Roeder will spend a long time in prison, it’s hard to feel justice has been served when he accomplished his goal.

David Flores, convicted of killing Phyllis Davis in April 1996, may get a new trial, the Des Moines Register reports today:

In a rare move, Polk County District Judge Don Nickerson ruled that David Flores’ constitutional right to due process was violated because a key police report naming another suspect was never turned over to his original defense lawyer.

Nickerson also found to be credible new testimony this year from a woman who said that suspect, Rafael Robinson, admitted he accidentally shot Davis.

Nickerson’s ruling indicated those two elements likely would have affected the outcome of Flores’ trial in 1997. […]

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said Wednesday he “respectfully but strongly” disagreed with the judge’s decision. He has asked the state attorney general’s office to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court on his office’s behalf.

An appeal before the state’s high court typically takes nine months to a year. The court can opt not to hear an appeal. In that case, Sarcone would have to decide whether to try Flores anew or set him free.

The Des Moines Register has a timeline of the Flores case here, as well as a good piece by Lee Rood on seven people who “cast doubt on evidence that helped convict Flores.” Commenting on the case last year, Rob Warden of the Center for Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law

said he’s never heard of an alleged wrongful conviction case in which three separate people came forward independently to name another suspect.

“There’s an extremely high probability that he’s innocent,” said Warden, whose [center] has helped exonerate dozens of people. “The fact that you now have three people who don’t have any connection to each other and no discernible motive to do anything but tell the truth is just extremely persuasive.”

Speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday, Polk County Attorney Sarcone dismissed the police report implicating Robinson as “two or three levels of hearsay.” I am no lawyer, but if multiple witnesses also say Robinson killed Davis, it is hard for me to believe prosecutors could prove Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a new trial.  

The conservative blog biggovernment.com published an alleged December 10 memo from the Department of Justice to Defense Secretary Robert Gates authorizing the transfer of some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The center was built to be a high-security state prison but has mostly remained mothballed for lack of state funding to operate it. Elected officials in Illinois have urged the federal government to use this facility to house some of the alleged terrorist prisoners because doing so is expected to create around 3,000 jobs in the area.

Iowa Republicans have been hammering Bruce Braley (IA-01) over this proposal, because the Thomson facility is just across the river from Clinton, Iowa. However, Braley says his constituents overwhelmingly favor the plan.

I will update this post if other reports confirm the authenticity of the memo.

UPDATE: Ed Tibbetts reported for the Quad-City Times:

An administration official, responding to the memo Friday, cautioned that it is only a draft and said it is not unusual for such documents to be prepared for multiple possibilities.

“This is a draft, predecisional document that lawyers at various agencies were drafting in preparation for a potential future announcement about where to house Gitmo detainees,” the official said.

“Drafts of official documents are often prepared for any and all possibilities, regardless of whether a decision has been made about the policy or if the document will be used,” said the official, who requested not to be identified because the person was not authorized to discuss the issue.

Despite the cautions, top Illinois backers were reacting positively to the development.

“Even though the final decision has not been made, we are encouraged by this development,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Gov. Pat Quinn said in a statement.

Representative Bruce Braley has rejected Republican critics of a proposal to transfer some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the Thomson Correctional Center, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton.

“The time for fear-mongering is over,” Braley said. “I have listened to my constituents all week, and they have told me with a resounding voice they want these jobs to come to their area.”

According to the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, the plan for Thomson “would create 840 to 910 temporary jobs and between 3,180 and 3,880 ongoing jobs over the first four years,” and local residents could fill as many as 1,400 of those jobs.

Iowa Republicans don’t appear ready to stop stoking fears about terrorists coming to a prison near you. State GOP chairman Matt Strawn’s November 20 e-mail blast slammed Braley, along with Representatives Leonard Boswell and Dave Loebsack:

On the only vote specifically related to keeping these terrorists off American soil, all three voted to welcome them with open arms. Now Iowans face the prospect of them being housed minutes from our state.

Iowa’s Republican members of Congress, U.S. Reps. Tom Latham and Steve King both voted in support of the legislation keeping terrorist detainees out of the U.S. […]

Additionally, Congressman Latham this week introduced the ‘Keep Terrorists out of the Midwest Act” following the news that the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., has emerged as a leading option for prosecution and incarceration.

I gather that Republicans are confident this is a winning issue for them, but is there any evidence that Iowans are afraid to have prisoners moved to a maximum-security facility on the other side of the Mississippi? John Carlson, the Des Moines Register’s conservative columnist, went to Clinton last week and found broad support for the plan.  

I’d like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers who live in the area. Will Republicans score political points with this controversy, or will their efforts backfire in eastern Iowa counties that stand to gain jobs from Thomson’s expansion?

Congressional Republicans were fine with the Bush administration’s decision to prosecute the “20th 9/11 hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui in U.S. federal court.

Republicans didn’t hit the panic button when would-be “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was tried in federal court.

Numerous international terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda are already in U.S. prisons. In May, Fred Kaplan reported for Slate:

According to data provided by Traci L. Billingsley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped, period.

Now that the Obama administration is planning to try some terrorism suspects in U.S. criminal courts and transfer others to U.S. prisons, GOP leaders want Americans to be very afraid. Iowa’s Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon.

Unbelievable:

School officials in Atlantic forced five teenage girls to take off their clothing for a search after a classmate reported $100 missing from her purse, according to the girls’ families and two lawyers.

The classmate and a female counselor stood watch in the girls’ locker room at Atlantic High School as the five girls removed their clothing, lifted up their underwear, and in one case took off all her clothing, according to lawyers Ed Noethe of Council Bluffs and Matt Hudson of Harlan.

Strip-searching is illegal in Iowa schools.

Dan Crozier, the interim superintendent of the Atlantic school district, said the search took place Aug. 21, the third day of school, during a gym class in the last period of the day.

Crozier said faculty members denied it was a strip-search. “According to our board policy, it was an allowable search,” he said.

Two predictions:

This matter will be settled out of court if the Atlantic school district has minimally competent legal advisers.

This interim position won’t lead to a permanent job for Crozier. Telling a group of girls to take off their clothes is an allowable search now? The Register quoted from the district’s search policies:

“A more intrusive search, short of a strip-search, of the student’s person, handbags, book bags, etc. is permissible in emergency situations when the health and safety of students, employees or visitors are threatened.”

I don’t think strip searches should be permitted in high schools at all, but I understand why it might happen if a student claimed to have seen a classmate carrying a gun, bomb or knife. For these girls to be humiliated over $100 allegedly stolen is outrageous.

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that strip-searching an Arizona middle school student suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school was unconstitutional.

UPDATE: Pam Spaulding discusses this case at Pandagon. An administrator has reportedly been placed on leave because of this incident.

I saw on Radio Iowa’s site that 16 shelters serving the homeless and victims of family violence will receive a total of $10 million through the I-JOBS state bonding initiative.

Grants will provide approximately half the funding to build new shelters in Des Moines, Iowa City, and Sioux Center. The other grants will pay for almost all of the renovation costs at 13 shelters in Muscatine, Dubuque, Mason City, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waverly, Boone, Davenport, and Burlington. Click here for more details about the 16 shelter projects.

According to the governor’s office,

Last year, more than 17,000 people sought help at Iowa’s shelters. Nearly 8,000 of these clients were members of families, and close to 40% of them were children.

The need is greater this year, probably because of the recession and growing number of foreclosures. From the Radio Iowa report:  

Tim Wilson, executive director of the shelter in Cedar Rapids, says there is an increased demand for services. “We have been very full from the spring through the summer on the men’s beds and particularly the family units. Lately, we’ve been turning away many more people than we can actually accommodate,” Wilson said.

Iowa Republicans keep bashing the I-JOBS program, but their false advertising and misleading talking points aren’t doing a thing to help the thousands of Iowans who need shelters during these tough times.

Hey all, I haven’t posted in awhile, so this is pretty shameless, linking to the Ames Progressive again. But we just published our September issue with a 4500-word feature on the medical marijuana debate in Iowa (the first Board of Pharmacy hearing on the science behind its medical value was held last week).

I know the site’s been following this, so check this out if you’re interested in a comprehensive overview of what’s going on. Cheers!

http://amesprogressive.org/200…  

State Representative Kerry Burt received a year of probation and a $625 fine after pleading guilty to drunk driving, the Des Moines Register reported on August 21. He will also be required to take a class for drunk drivers. Burt released a statement apologizing for his actions and promising never to let it happen again. I’ve posted that statement after the jump. It doesn’t sound like he’s planning to resign.

I would like Democrats to find a new candidate for House district 21 next year. The Register pointed out that State Senator Robert Dvorsky was re-elected in 2006 despite a drunk driving arrest earlier that year, but Dvorsky had spent nearly two decades in the Iowa legislature at that time and represents a safe Democratic district. Burt is in his first term and defeated a Republican incumbent by a narrow margin in 2008. He is also among several people being investigated for giving false addresses in order to evade tuition payments at the University of Northern Iowa’s Malcolm Price Laboratory School.

Please find us a new candidate in Iowa House district 21. State Representative Kerry Burt should not run for re-election and probably should not even serve out his term. It would be hard enough to salvage a political career in light of a state auditor’s report and criminal investigation over Burt giving a false address to evade tuition fees for his children. But this report is just as disturbing:

Rep. Kerry Burt, D-Waterloo, told Ankeny police in February that he could not be arrested because of his position as a state representative, according to the police report.

Burt also told police that it was not a question of how much he had to drink but “who he was drinking with.” Burt then whispered, “the governor,” according to police reports.

Burt apparently also mentioned that he was a firefighter and asked for some “professional courtesy” instead of arrest. His attorney says his comments are being taken out of context. I don’t know what the criminal investigation regarding the tuition fees will conclude, and I don’t know whether Burt will be convicted of the drunk driving charge, but it looks to me like his political career is over.

Governor Culver doesn’t want anything to do with defending Burt, and who can blame him?

“Obviously this is a very serious legal matter and it’s very troubling to see how dangerous this situation really was,” Culver said, later adding that he was only with Burt that night for about 30 minutes at a dinner attended by roughly 15 people.

“I have no idea what he did after I left that dinner at 8:55. I was home at 9 o’clock. He was arrested at 2 a.m. I have no idea really what he did between 9 and 2.”

Culver declined to say if he believed Burt should resign. That decision, Culver said, is for Burt to make.

The Iowa House Ethics Committee won’t take up this matter until other investigations conclude. It would be better for Burt to resign or at least announce that he doesn’t plan to run for re-election next year.

We have a lot of good Democrats in the Waterloo area. Please post a comment if you have any suggestions about good candidates for this House district in 2010, or sooner if a special election is needed.

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy on Tuesday refused to reclassify marijuana as a medication doctors can prescribe, but voted to hold public hearings on the issue.

A bill introduced last year in the Iowa Senate would have allowed not-for-profit facilities called “compassion centers” to acquire, cultivate and deliver marijuana and related supplies to qualifying patients. The bill never got out of subcommittee, but its sponsor, Sen. Joe Bolkcom, said Tuesday that the Legislature could approve some sort of legalization.

The Iowa City Democrat applauded the plan to hold statewide hearings. “Like with any issue, there’s a certain education process that needs to go on,” he said.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, a Grafton Republican who served on the subcommittee, opposed Bolkcom’s bill because he thought it offered too few controls. However, Bartz said he believes more legislators would support a medical-marijuana bill with the same kinds of tight regulations already in place on prescription painkillers and other addictive drugs.

When the Iowa Board of Pharmacy announces dates and locations for these public hearings, I will include them on my event calendars at Bleeding Heartland.

Iowa should not have to reinvent the wheel on medical marijuana. Presumably our legislators could adapt model language from statutes approved elsewhere.

Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register reported that the Board of Pharmacy’s resolution denying the request to reclassify marijuana also attacked Carl Olsen, who heads Iowans for Medical Marijuana. It cited Olsen’s various arrests on marijuana-related charges during the 1970s and 1980s.

Des Moines Register columnist Marc Hansen described the Board of Pharmacy’s reaction to Olsen as “overblown.” What bothers me is that board members seem to think Olsen’s personal history is relevant to the issue of whether marijuana should be classified as a drug so dangerous that Iowa doctors cannot prescribe it.

The Board of Pharmacy’s actions on this matter should not be influenced by members’ opinions about Olsen or his motives. Their job is to evaluate the evidence on whether marijuana has valid medical uses. Under certain circumstances, Iowa doctors already can prescribe narcotics that are more addictive than marijuana and have more harmful side effects.

Governor Chet Culver has set September 1 as the date for the special election in Iowa House district 90, which includes Van Buren and parts of Wapello and Jefferson counties. The seat opened up when State Representative John Whitaker decided to take a position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

If you live within striking distance of this district, please consider volunteering for Democratic candidate Curt Hanson. His campaign website is here, and he’s also on Twitter and Facebook. This will be a low-turnout election, so a strong volunteer effort will be essential.

According to Bleeding Heartland user im4klein, the GOP will announce its candidate in House district 90 today or tomorrow. Supposedly he is a farmer who has won elections in the past. Sounds like a county supervisor to me, but we’ll find out soon enough.

UPDATE: The Republican candidate for this special election is indeed a county supervisor–to be more precise, Jefferson County supervisor Stephen Burgmeier. Click the link to read his press release. The last time Burgmeier was on my radar screen, he and his fellow supervisors had passed a resolution on April 27, 2009, asking the Iowa legislature to stop same-sex marriages. Burgmeier’s timing was either brilliant (because April 27 was the first day for legal same-sex marriages in Iowa) or stupid (because the legislature had just adjourned for the year on April 26). I expect him to make gay marriage a major issue in this special election campaign.

SECOND UPDATE: According to The Iowa Republican’s Al Swearengen,

Ed Failor Jr. and Iowans for Tax Relief are running the entire campaign effort in the [House district 90] special election…

Word is that Failor has committeed big dollars to the race and already has his ITR staff embedded in the district and running the race… […]

Anybody that questions the power and influence of Failor and ITR need to look no further than this race…they are running this race…and are in charge of all [Iowa] House and Senate elections…

Meanwhile, the Des Moines Register reports,

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation is investigating a case that involves a state audit that indicates a representative shortchanged an Iowa school $37,000, a state spokesman confirmed today.

No charges have been filed against Rep. Kerry Burt, D-Waterloo, but if the accusations prove to be accurate, they ultimately could lead to his removal from office, according to Iowa law.

House Speaker Pat Murphy told the Register, “I think [Burt] has a very good record, and I stand behind him at this point, and I’m 100 percent with him.” I hope Murphy has a plan B in case the criminal investigation confirms the allegations in the state auditor’s report. Burt’s seat wasn’t going to be an easy hold even before this scandal, because of his arrest in February on a drunk driving charge, which has not yet gone to trial.

We have a lot of good Democrats in the Waterloo area, and I’d like to see someone else on our ballot line in House district 21 next year.

After “an emotional public hearing,” the Des Moines City Council voted 6-0 today to restore the original name of the Archie Brooks Community Center on the south side:

Brooks, a long-time councilman who was first elected in 1975, pleaded guilty of conspiracy and misappropriation of public money stemming from his role in a payroll scandal at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium, where he once served as board chairman. He was sentenced in January to a year and a day in prison and was ordered to repay $400,000 of the nearly $2 million lost in the scandal.

Some argue Brooks’ actions not only disgraced himself, but shamed the city, while others say decades of public service outweigh any of his admitted misdeeds.

The nice facility will once again be known as the Pioneer-Columbus Community Center.

City Council member Tom Vlassis abstained from today’s vote. He was a CIETC board member when crimes occurred at the agency and has admitted that he was a “rubber stamp” for what CIETC executives wanted.

Most Des Moines residents who contacted City Council members about the matter supported taking Brooks’ name off the community center. However, listening to those who stand by Brooks even now provides a good reminder of how well patronage can work for local political bosses.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. Bonus points if you can explain why the CIETC scandal, involving about $2 million, has generated more intense public outrage than the billions of taxpayer dollars squandered in wasteful, no-bid federal contracts every year.

I suspect this is mainly related to “agenda-setting” by local media that put CIETC on the front page for months. Perhaps some armchair psychologist in the Bleeding Heartland community knows of other reasons why certain crimes involving public money make people angrier than others.

Even if you don’t like Iowa’s public smoking ban, even if you think the smoking ban is unconstitutional, even if you have joined a lawsuit challenging the smoking ban, the smoking ban still applies to you.

Larry Duncan, owner of Otis Campbell’s Bar and Grill in West Burlington, learned that lesson today when his business became the first to lose its liquor license for failing to comply with the Iowa Smokefree Air Act. State Senator Tom Courtney hailed today’s action by the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division in a statement released by the Iowa Senate Democrats (excerpt):

“This is a great day for restaurant and bar owners in our community who are playing the rules,” said State Senator Tom Courtney of Burlington. “This law protects the health of employees who don’t have a choice when they are forced to work in smoke-filled rooms. The overwhelming majority of employers in the state understand this and have complied with the law.”

The state decision leaves room for the liquor license to be restored sooner if Otis Cambpell’s agrees to the follow the law.

“I think that’s a reasonable compromise,” said Courtney. “It would send the wrong message to law-abiding Iowans if the state ignored a handful of business owners who are thumbing their nose at this new law.”

According to the Des Moines Register, Duncan is challenging the smoking ban in federal court. Other restaurant and bar owners have filed suit in Iowa. I think they are all wasting their money, as courts have upheld other state and local smoking bans, but they have every right to challenge the law. They do not have the right to flout the law in the meantime, though. Last summer a judge denied a request to suspend the smoking ban pending trial.

Share any relevant thoughts and opinions in this thread.

I haven’t written anything yet about Senator Chuck Grassley’s comments on the AIG bonuses. The whole episode was such an empty populist gesture. First he said the AIG no-goodniks should act like the Japanese and either offer a humble apology or kill themselves. Then he walked back his comments and said they should offer a sincere apology. That’s all? I’d like to see more strings attached to the Wall Street bailout program, which Grassley voted for.

The Twitterer for the Daily Iowan Opinion page had the best response to Grassley I’ve seen so far. After the senator explained that “I do want an attitude in corporate American that’s similar to what they have in corporate Japan,” DIOpinions commented, “Making failed American executives more like their Japanese counterparts would require massive pay cuts.” Don’t hold your breath until Grassley gets behind that.

Anyway, we’ll find out how much Grassley cares about getting taxpayers’ money back from AIG when the Senate votes on the bill the House of Representatives passed yesterday.

Follow me after the jump to read about Grassley’s recent comments on medical marijuana and health care reform.

Also, I can confirm that at least one Democrat is stepping forward to challenge Iowa’s senior senator in 2010. Details are below.

Daily Kos user JoesUnionReview brought Nigel Haskett’s story to my attention. Haskett was working at a McDonald’s in Arkansas and saw a woman being assaulted in the restaurant. He threw her attacker out and stood at the door to keep the man from coming back in. The assailant got a gun from his car and shot Haskett multiple times. Three abdominal surgeries later, Haskett has $300,000 in medical bills, but “the insurance agency representing McDonald’s says he doesn’t qualify for Worker’s Compensation in this incident.”

JoesUnionReview goes over the legal issues surrounding the worker’s compensation claim and why McDonald’s should be liable.

To me, this is even more unfair than Pizza Hut firing the Des Moines delivery driver who shot a would-be armed robber. That case prompted some people to boycott Pizza Hut. Will anyone boycott McDonald’s for its treatment of Haskett? I would, but I don’t think McDonald’s would notice, since I haven’t eaten there for years.

By the way, if we had universal health care in this country, someone who got shot while doing a minimum-wage job with no benefits would not get stuck with a $300,000 bill.  

Former Des Moines City Council member Archie Brooks was sentenced to one year plus one day in prison, plus a $400,000 fine and two years of probation, for his role in misusing about $2 million funds at the Central Iowa Employment Training Consortium (CIETC). Brooks was the board chairman of CIETC at the time.

Depending on how you look at it, Brooks’ sentence seems long or short. It’s long when you consider that billions of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq can’t be accounted for, yet there is not even a serious investigation (let alone prosecution) of those who may be responsible.

On the other hand, Brooks is getting off lightly compared to Ramona Cunningham, who did not cooperate with prosecutors and got 7 years in prison for her role in the CIETC crimes. Also, the former CIETC treasurer was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years of house arrest.

Marc Hansen’s latest Des Moines Register column notes that Des Moines City Council member Brian Meyer wants the council to discuss renaming the Archie Brooks Community Center. The south-side facility used to be called the Pioneer-Columbus Community Center.

Meyer says he’s getting a lot of feedback from south-siders, most of whom want to change the name. I agree that an elected official who abused his power to enrich a few people should not have a neighborhood landmark named after him.

Hansen nosed around the community center and found that most of the people agreed with changing the name, but the most interesting quotes in his column are from the minority who want to leave the name alone.

If you want to understand why patronage works and why political machines have been so powerful in so many cities, read this:

“I’m not going against Archie Brooks,” she said. “I like Archie. I don’t like what he did. I think he should be punished, but I don’t think he should go to prison.”

The body of his good deeds, in other words, outweighs the CIETC bad. Pazzi recalled the floods of 1993 and how the city removed water pumps from some south-side basements and sent them – where else? – west.

Somebody told Brooks, who made a few phone calls and had the pumps back where they belonged, proving that not every call he made during the flood was a bad one.

“You know what?” Pazzi said. “The south side must have wanted him back. He knocked the fireman out of the City Council.”

The fireman is Gene Phillips, who defeated Brooks in 1995. Phillips left the City Council and won a seat on the county Board of Supervisors, setting up Brooks’ return to the council.[…]

Larry Marlin […] said Brooks kept his VFW post from closing.

“If it wasn’t for his connections to the City Council,” Marlin said, “the post wouldn’t be there. He knew we were eligible for a $10,000 grant. There were a lot of times he’d tell me where to go and it was never go to hell. Sure, he made some mistakes, but he trusted the wrong people. I definitely don’t think he should get jail time.”

That’s an old-school political boss. Good for Brooks for getting those pumps back to the flooded south-side basements and keeping the VFW post open.

But we don’t need a building named after a convicted criminal.

My apologies for not getting this in closer to the actual new year, but you could say that “a day late and a dollar short” has been the theme of the new year so far for me. Or five days short, as the case may be.

In any case, before we start the new political year for real, I thought it might be fun to share our predictions for the new year. Here are nine predictions of mine for two thousand and nine.

1. The state budget is in far worse shape then we think. Expect the fight over the budget to get ugly, quick.

The Iowa state fiscal year runs from July 1 2008 to June 30 2009–right in the heart of the economic meltdown. Given that the estimates for this period are just starting to come in, it's reasonable to assume that the stories we're currently hearing about the “budget crisis” represent only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Likewise, the 1.5% across-the-board cut currently proposed by Gov. Culver isn't going to be nearly enough to solve the crisis. It's going to get ugly and fast.

2. Unemployment will hit 10% by the end of 2009, and recovery will not come until early 2010.

Call me a pessimist, but I think things are going to get much worse before they get better. When you combine the potential failure of the Big 3 (a still unresolved issue, by the way), plus a global manufacturing slowdown, with the fact that up to 25% of retail stores may declare bankrupcy in the next year–you have the recipie for unmitigated economic disaster.  

To complicate matters, I do not expect President Obama's recovery measures to be passed before May of this year. (There are already signs that a long battle is ahead for this bill.) That means that many of the infrastructure projects given funds through the program will miss out on the summer construction window–meaning they likely won't start until Summer 2010. Many other measures, like tax cuts or social programs won't go into effect until 2010 as well…moving the light at the end of the tunnel further and further away.

3. The Big 3 will not survive in their current form. Get ready for the Big 2.

Regardless of whether the auto bailout was the correct move at the time, by the time the big ball drops in 2010–there will no longer be a Big 3 as we know them now. My best guess is that one of the Big 3 automakers (most likely Chrysler) will implode into disorganized bankrupcy. No buyer will be found, and the brand will simply cease to exist. This will spark a crisis that will either lead to the organized bankrupcy/restructuring of the other companies, or government assistance with severe Bob Corker style conditions. 

The good news is that out of the multitude of laid-off engineers and designers, we could see new  and innovative technologies, designs, and companies form. By 2020 we could all be driving solar hybrids designed and built by ex-Big 3 designers who started their own companies.

6. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage in the case of Varnum v. Brien.

Beware the ides of March rings true in Iowa in 2009. Expect a ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien to come down with a rulings for several other cases on March 13, the conclusion of the Court's March session. When that happens expect a whirlwind of craziness to descend on the state: national media, a rush of spring weddings, celebrity attention, half-cocked legal challenges, right-wing rants, Fred Phelps-ian protests, legislative blustering, Steve Deace's head exploding, and who knows what else.

I don't think the moon turning to blood, the dead walking the streets, or any other Pat Robertson-style pronouncements will come true…but expect a wild ride.

5. The Republican candidate for Governor will be a serious contender who already holds a major elected office.

The current fight over the RPI chair has a definite and familiar theme: change. Old hacks are out, new hacks are in. While there is a faction of the GOP that clings to BVP like life preserver, the majority of the party is, I think, waiting for someone new to come along.

That someone is either State Auditor David Vaudt, Sec. of Agriculture Bill Northey, or 4th District Congressman Tom Latham.

Vaudt looks to emerge as one of the main faces of opposition to Culver on budget issues, a position he could use to slingshot him to the governorship. Northey is the darling of the Republican Party and, with agricultural issues on the back-burner this year and little to do, may find the Governor's race an attractive prospect. Latham, by all measures a low-importance member of the minority party might decide that its now or never for him. And he has nothing to lose: if he wins, he's the Governor; if he loses, he can run again as the elder-statesman in the dogfight that will be the new 3rd district.

By now you have surely read about Bernard Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme. For background, here’s a collection of New York Times articles on the scandal.

The Securities Exchange Commission is conducting an internal investigation to find out why Madoff’s criminal enterprise went undetected for so long. It’s already obvious that this was a massive regulatory failure.

The SEC was warned about Madoff:

The SEC had the authority to investigate Madoff’s investment business, which managed billions of dollars for wealthy investors and philanthropies. Financial analysts raised concerns about Madoff’s practices repeatedly over the past decade, including a 1999 letter to the SEC that accused Madoff of running a Ponzi scheme. But the agency did not conduct even a routine examination of the investment business until last week.

No one knows yet how many people were involved in helping Madoff conceal his fraud. And while Madoff’s operation was particularly massive, no one knows how many other fraudulent investment firms are out there, because the SEC lacks the resources to enforce compliance with financial securities laws.

Those who had invested with Madoff have lost the entire value of their accounts, and they are not the only victims of his crimes. In fact, Madoff may have indirectly harmed more victims than any other white-collar criminal in history. His clients included many non-profit organizations and charitable foundations, some of which have already ceased operations. Numerous Jewish non-profits have been hit hard, but the fallout will extend far beyond the Jewish community. The Picower Foundation alone gave out tens of millions of dollars in grants every year. Within months, the education, human rights and arts non-profits that relied on those funds are likely to be in financial crisis.

The JEHT Foundation was much smaller than the Picower Foundation but “was a leading supporter of civil rights causes, including groups working to expand voting rights in the South.” Its outgoing president noted when announcing plans to shut down operations that

The issues the Foundation addressed received very limited philanthropic support and the loss of the foundation’s funding and leadership will cause significant pain and disruption of the work for many dedicated people and organizations. The Foundation’s programs have met with significant success in recent years – promoting change in these critical areas in partnership with government and the non-profit sector. Hopefully others will look closely at this work and consider supporting it going forward.

We can hope that others will step in to support the worthy causes whose funders were defrauded by Madoff, but that is extremely unlikely. Just about every grant-making foundation has suffered a significant decline in assets this year because of the stock market’s slide. Individuals of great wealth have also seen their net worth shrink. Non-profit organizations were already bracing for a difficult fundraising year in 2009. The Madoff scandal makes it even more likely that many non-profits will not survive this downturn.

Consider them casualties of “small government” at the SEC, and remember what happened to them the next time conservatives whine about big, bad regulators.  

Ramona Cunningham was sentenced to seven years in prison for her part in misappropriating $1.5 million in federal funds while she headed the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC). Others involved in the fraud at CIETC will be sentenced later this month or next year, but presumably Cunningham will do the most time in prison, having been the central figure in the scandal.

The prison sentence seems fair; misusing funds meant for job training programs is a serious crime. I’m sure many people will say Cunningham should be punished more harshly, though. The hatred of her is out of proportion to the crimes at CIETC.

Speaking of crime and punishment, Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post contrasting the media’s exhaustive coverage of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged crimes with the near-total silence about the Senate Armed Services Committee’s recent finding:

The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday — which documents that “former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” and “that Rumsfeld’s actions were ‘a direct cause of detainee abuse’ at Guantanamo and ‘influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques … in Afghanistan and Iraq’” — raises an obvious and glaring question:  how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution?  

Great question.

UPDATE: CIETC’s former chief accountant Karen Tesdell got sentenced to two years on Tuesday for looking the other way as her colleagues misappropriated money.

Marc Hansen’s latest column reviews the arguments Cunningham’s attorney Bill Kutmus used during the sentencing hearing. He said his client wasn’t the ringleader and should not be punished more harshly than John Bargman (CIETC’s former chief operating officer, who will be sentenced next year). He also said Cunningham was a victim of sexism, and that U.S. prosecutors had treated her unfairly.

I agree that misogyny was driving a lot of the intense hatred of Cunningham. But I have some advice for her: next time you decide to commit a bunch of federal crimes, strike a plea bargain like Bargman did if you don’t want to do serious prison time.

Look at Mitchell Wade. He bribed a member of Congress with more than $1.8 million and just got sentenced to only 30 months in prison, because he cooperated with prosecutors.