The first Iowa survey by a brand-new Republican polling firm, Vox Populi, shows close races for governor and for the open U.S. Senate seat. Toplines for those races and for the 2016 Iowa caucuses are after the jump.  

Yesterday the Iowa Senate approved by 36 votes to 12 a bill to legalize the use of medical cannabis oil for treating certain seizure conditions. You can read the full text of Senate File 2360 here. After the jump I’ve posted State Senator Joe Bolkcom’s floor statements in support of the bill, which summarize its key points and limited scope. An Iowa Senate Democratic research staffer provided a more detailed analysis of the bill here (pdf).

The roll call in the Senate Journal shows that all 26 Iowa Senate Democrats voted for the cannabis oil bill, joined by the following ten Republicans: Mike Breitbach, Mark Chelgren, Minority Leader Bill Dix, Joni Ernst, Hubert Houser, David Johnson, Tim Kapucian, Charles Schneider, Amy Sinclair, and Brad Zaun. The twelve Republicans who voted no were Bill Anderson, Jerry Behn, Rick Bertrand, Nancy Boettger, Jake Chapman, Randy Feenstra, Julian Garrett, Sandy Greiner, Dennis Guth, Ken Rozenboom, Roby Smith, and Jack Whitver. Republicans Mark Segebart and Dan Zumbach were absent.

During the floor debate, several Republicans warned that passing the bill would send the wrong message to teenagers, leading to more recreational use of marijuana. That’s hard to fathom, since the bill does not legalize smoking marijuana, even for terminally or chronically ill Iowans who could benefit from medical cannabis in that form.

Key Iowa House Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad have made clear that for now, they would consider only a bill to allow access to medical cannabis oil. I hope a study committee on broader use of medical marijuana will go forward. Senate File 2360 is a step in the right direction and will give families like this one options other than moving to Colorado. However, the bill leaves out too many suffering people.

P.S.- A sign of how far the political ground has shifted in the medical marijuana debate: Joni Ernst and Brad Zaun are in fiercely competitive GOP primaries (for U.S. Senate and IA-03, respectively). Both of them voted for this bill.

The Suffolk University Political Research Center asked 800 Iowa “likely voters” about this year’s biggest races. The margin of error for the survey, conducted between April 3 and April 8, is plus or minus 3.5 percent. Suffolk’s press release summarizing the highlights is here. Full results are here (pdf). Tables are here (pdf).

Representative Bruce Braley leads all Republican rivals for U.S. Senate in the first Iowa poll conducted after Braley’s comments about Senator Chuck Grassley gained wide attention. Braley is still better-known than the GOP candidates, and more Iowans have a favorable than unfavorable impression of him. The bad news for Braley is that he is below 40 percent against each of the Republican candidates.

Suffolk’s poll indicates that the GOP IA-Sen primary is now a two-tier race, with State Senator Joni Ernst and Mark Jacobs each commanding more than 20 percent support, and the other candidates in the single digits. That makes sense, since Ernst and Jacobs have the most establishment support and are the only Senate candidates who have been able to raise their name recognition through paid advertising. But 40 percent of respondents were undecided.

Governor Terry Branstad’s still in positive territory, with 48.5 percent of respondents viewing him favorably and about 35.4 percent unfavorably. His lead over Democratic State Senator Jack Hatch is smaller in this poll than in any other Iowa survey I’ve seen, though: 42.4 percent to 32.1 percent.

Among respondents who said they are likely to participate in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, 63 percent favor Hillary Clinton. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren was far behind with 12 percent, followed by Vice President Joe Biden with 10 percent. It’s hard to say who is really in second place, since the margin of error for the Democratic caucus-goer subsample is quite large (plus or minus 8.4 percent). Nevertheless, Clinton clearly maintains a commanding lead.

I wouldn’t read much into the Iowa GOP caucus results from this survey. All the potential presidential candidates (Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, and Condoleezza Rice) are clumped close together, between 6 and 11 percent support. That’s within the the margin of error of plus or minus 8.7 percent for that subset of the Suffolk poll.

The Des Moines Register ran a front-page feature today on retiring Republican State Senator Hubert Houser. Having served for ten years in the Iowa House and twelve in the Iowa Senate, Houser stopped showing up for work at the statehouse in early March. He plans to return only for “a day or two” at the end of the session. He has taken on more responsibilities at his family farm and contends that he doesn’t need to be at the capitol, since Republicans are the minority party. They can’t bring their own bills to the Iowa Senate floor and don’t need Houser’s vote.

On the one hand, I can imagine minority lawmakers must get tired of spending days at the Capitol, not accomplishing much while thinking about all the work that needs to be done at home. On the other hand, the Iowa legislature is only in session a few months of the year. Houser’s constituents elected him to do a job. He’s collecting a salary for work he isn’t doing.

Asked to comment on Houser’s prolonged absence today, Governor Terry Branstad said, “I respect individual legislators’ right to make the decisions that they make with regards to their vote and things like that,” adding that Houser has been a “great representative for the people of southwest Iowa.”

Missed Iowa Senate votes may become a salient issue in the U.S. Senate race. In early March, Rod Boshart was the first to start tallying GOP State Senator Joni Ernst’s many excused absences during this year’s legislative session. Only a few of the missed days could be chalked up to National Guard duty; others were related to campaigning or fundraising for her U.S. Senate bid. Ernst’s short political career doesn’t open up many lines for attack, but this will be a big one for Democratic candidate Bruce Braley if he faces Ernst in the general election. Republican blogger Craig Robinson, who is supporting Mark Jacobs in the IA-Sen GOP primary, has repeatedly called attention to Ernst missing Iowa Senate votes this year. I would not be surprised to see Jacobs’ campaign, or some dark money entity supporting him, make this case against Ernst before the June primary. Nick Ryan (best known to Bleeding Heartland readers as the head of the American Future Fund) is handling direct mail for the Jacobs campaign.

UPDATE: Speaking to the Des Moines Register, Secretary of the Senate Michael Marshall said Houser is still taking both his legislator’s salary ($25,000 annually) and per diem expense reimbursement payments. Marshall said Ernst “has sometimes asked not to be provided legislative per diem payments for certain days.”

Speaking to WHO-TV, Ernst said she has missed five days in the Iowa Senate this year for campaign-related activities.

SECOND UPDATE: Sounds like Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix leaned on Houser, who is now planning to show up for work and indicated that he will return per diem expense payments for days he’s missed.

Here’s your weekend open thread: all topics welcome.

I’d like to hear views from the Bleeding Heartland community on a question that’s been on my mind lately, as the “Liberty” movement ceases to be the dominant force in the Republican Party of Iowa. Why haven’t more people from the large contingent of Ron Paul/Rand Paul admirers stepped up to run in this year’s Iowa Republican primaries?

Despite plenty of speculation, no one associated with Ron Paul’s presidential campaign went for Iowa’s first open U.S. Senate seat in 40 years. Why not? This opportunity won’t come around again soon, not with Senator Chuck Grassley already planning to seek a seventh term in 2016. Did fundraising concerns or some other factor keep Drew Ivers, David Fischer, or others from believing they could run a strong Senate campaign?

In Iowa’s open third Congressional district, none of the six Republican candidates publicly endorsed Ron Paul for president, as far as I know. Nor did any of the three Republicans running against Representative Dave Loebsack in IA-02.

Iowa’s most prominent “Liberty” candidate is Rod Blum in the open first Congressional district. There are a few Paulinistas running in GOP primaries for the Iowa House and Senate, but not as many as I would have expected, given the Liberty movement’s takeover of the Iowa GOP apparatus in 2012.

Any Iowans who don’t already know that Representative Bruce Braley disparaged Senator Chuck Grassley at a fundraiser will likely hear about it very soon. Priorities for Iowa announced yesterday that it is spending $250,000 to run a television ad statewide featuring Braley’s remarks. Click through to watch the 30-second commercial. Priorities for Iowa was formed by supporters of Joni Ernst for U.S. Senate. We’ll probably never know who put up a quarter of a million dollars to run their ad, since 501(c)4 groups can keep their donors’ identities secret.

Meanwhile, rival GOP Senate candidate Mark Jacobs just launched a new 60-second radio ad featuring Braley’s comments. Click through to listen.

Lacking the money for paid advertising at this point, the other Republican contenders in the IA-Sen primary have to settle for condemning Braley in social media posts and e-mail blasts to supporters.

Braley’s staff got a couple of reminders yesterday that they need to raise their game. The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs dinged the campaign for misspelling the words “baling” and “detasseling” in a press release defending the Democratic candidate’s record on agricultural issues. (For what it’s worth, my spell-checker marked the correct spelling of “detasseling” in red.) Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski noticed that a stock photo accompanying a Braley Facebook post was of a farm in England, not Iowa.  

Politics ain’t beanbag. As a talk radio host with a sizable conservative audience in northwest Iowa, Sam Clovis must have been a valuable ally for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum during the 2012 Iowa caucus campaign. Clovis has explicitly modeled his U.S. Senate campaign on Santorum’s grassroots effort. But speaking to Iowa reporters yesterday, Santorum indicated that for now, he is staying out of the GOP primary for U.S. Senate.

“I have a very, very good friend who’s in the race – Sam Clovis who’s a terrific guy, is a good friend and someone who was a great support of mine, you know, Sam’s a #1, top-flight kind of guy,” Santorum says. “Right now I have sort of not gotten engaged in that race. I may.”

But Santorum said he is being selective about his endorsements because, he said, “the more you do, the less effective you are.”

You mean, less effective like endorsing State Representative Walt Rogers for Congress, only to see Rogers bail out of the IA-01 primary?

Santorum was in town yesterday to raise money for Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s Congressional campaign in IA-03. I wasn’t surprised when Santorum backed Schultz, but arguably, Clovis did a lot more to promote Santorum’s presidential aspirations than Schultz with his 11th hour endorsement. For sure Clovis was more influential than Rogers during the Iowa caucus campaign.

Unfortunately for Clovis, money talks, and he hasn’t raised enough of it to run an effective statewide Senate campaign. How tough to be blown off by Santorum, though. As a consolation prize, Clovis got the endorsement of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum yesterday. I wonder how many rank and file Iowa Republicans remember Schlafly, a conservative icon of the 1970s and 1980s.

UPDATE: David Bossie’s group Citizens United just endorsed Clovis as “the only full-spectrum conservative” in the IA-Sen race.

In what may be merely a coincidence, two stories related to Iowa’s U.S. Senate race made a big splash yesterday on national blogs and cable news networks as well as in local media.

In what may be merely a coincidence, State Senator Joni Ernst’s campaign released its first television commercial on the same day the 501(c)4 group Priorities for Iowa released a video drawing national attention to a gaffe by Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley.

In what may be merely a coincidence, several prominent Ernst supporters run that 501(c)4 group, which was created a few weeks after Ernst’s campaign launch.

It’s common nowadays for candidates’ campaigns to spend money spreading positive messages, while outside entities (political action committees, 501(c)4 advocacy organizations, or 527 groups) pay to get the best opposition research into the public sphere. But candidates are not allowed to coordinate messaging or timing with those outside groups.

I’m not saying someone from the Ernst campaign gave Priorities for Iowa a heads-up on when they were planning to release their tv ad. I’m not saying someone from Priorities for Iowa let Ernst staffers know ahead of time when they planned to drop their bomb on Braley. I’m just saying, the clip from a two-month-old speech by the Democratic candidate couldn’t have been released at a better time for Ernst to capitalize on her attention-getting “castration” spot.

Every candidate for public office has to learn basic rules of campaigning, such as, “Every mic is a live mic.” In other words, always assume you may be overheard when you stand next to a microphone, even if you think it’s not turned on.

In the age of camera phones and YouTube, candidates may be speaking into a live mic even when there’s no microphone to be seen. Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Iowa, learned that lesson the hard way today.  

I’ve been meaning to put up a thread on efforts to legalize cannabis for medical use in Iowa. State Senator Joe Bolkcom has been the lead sponsor of a bill that would create “a state regulated system to provide medical cannabis to Iowans under a doctor’s care.” Senate File 2215 (full text) did not meet the Iowa legislature’s first “funnel” deadline because of a lack of support from statehouse Republicans. However, more recently GOP lawmakers including Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, a nurse practitioner, have said they are open to discussions on the issue. Iowa House Republican Clel Baudler, who helped kill a similar bill last year, is dead-set against what he calls an “asinine” idea.

The Iowa Medical Marijuana website includes much more background on efforts to legalize the medical use of cannabis. The front page of that site includes links to recent news coverage and videos from an Iowa Senate hearing on March 5. CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta changed his mind on the medical uses of marijuana while working on a documentary last year.

After the jump I’ve enclosed a statement from Bolkcom explaining the key points of SF 2215, highlights from the Des Moines Register’s latest polling on the issue, and comments from Governor Terry Branstad, West Des Moines Mayor Steve Gaer, and Representative Bruce Braley, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.

Any relevant thoughts or predictions are welcome in this thread. I expect advocates will have to work for at least a few more years before Iowa joins the 20 states and Washington, DC where medical marijuana is already legal.  

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

Republicans in Governor Terry Branstad’s orbit tried to rig the game to ensure that the March 8 Polk County GOP Convention ratified a long list of at-large delegates to the third Congressional district and state conventions later this year. Shane Vander Hart provides good background at Caffeinated Thoughts. Activist Kim Schmett, who was the GOP challenger to Representative Leonard Boswell in 2008, complained to the Des Moines Register, “Some unknown person is coming up with an ultimate list. Why have a county convention at all if 40 percent of your delegates are hand-picked ahead of time?”

Sounds like Branstad’s team was not satisfied with results from their efforts to turn loyalists out to the off-year precinct caucuses in January. The governor needs to prevent any serious challenge at the state convention to Kim Reynolds’ nomination for a second term as lieutenant governor. I am convinced that if re-elected, he will step down in the middle of his sixth term to ensure that she becomes governor.

State convention delegates may also end up selecting the GOP nominee for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat, if no one wins at least 35 percent of the vote in the June primary. Similarly, a third Congressional district convention may select the GOP nominee if none of the six declared IA-03 candidates wins at least 35 percent of the primary votes.

The Iowa Republican blogger Craig Robinson worked with Polk County GOP Chair Will Rogers and two Branstad campaign staffers to resolve concerns over delegate selection. As a result, the at-large slate was reduced from 100 to 50 delegates guaranteed to be at the district and state conventions. Vander Hart commented, “While I’m glad they responded to the backlash it should be the Polk County Republican Executive Committee, not the Branstad Campaign, determining this list.” Obviously.

The Polk County GOP addressed the controversy in a Facebook post I’ve excerpted after the jump. UPDATE: Added some comments below from Dave Chung, an Iowa GOP State Central Committee member. SECOND UPDATE: Added excerpts from Craig Robinson’s commentary.

And now for something completely different: music geeks may enjoy Seth Stevenson’s analysis of the strange time signature of the theme from the original Terminator movie, which (amazingly) is 30 years old this year.

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey shows Mark Jacobs with a small lead over the rest of the Republican field in the U.S. Senate race. Democrat Bruce Braley leads all the major Republican contenders, but by a smaller margin than he did last July. Click here for complete results, including question wordings and cross-tabs. PPP surveyed surveyed 869 Iowa voters, including 283 Republican primary voters, between February 20th to 23rd, producing a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percent for the statewide poll and 5.8 percent for the Republican primary findings.

The GOP Senate candidates are still largely unknown, even to Republican voters, but Jacobs has the highest name recognition, thanks to radio and television commercials his campaign has been running since early December. Among PPP’s Republican respondents, 42 percent were undecided, followed by 20 percent for Jacobs, 13 percent for State Senator Joni Ernst, 11 percent for former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker, 8 percent for Sam Clovis, and 3 percent each for Paul Lunde and Scott Schaben.

Among the full sample, Braley has the highest name recognition but is still unknown to nearly half the respondents. He leads Whitaker by 40 percent to 34 percent, Ernst and Jacobs by 41-35, and Clovis by 42-34. In PPP’s July 2013 survey, Braley’s lead averaged 11 points. The polling firm’s Tom Jensen argued that the “pretty clear reason” for the tightening in the Senate race is that “Barack Obama’s approval rating in the state has dropped a net 10 points compared to the summer.”

Earlier this month, Jacobs’ campaign released partial results from an internal poll showing Jacobs leading the Republican field for the primary, with 22 percent support compared to 11 percent for Ernst, 8 percent for Whitaker and 6 percent for Clovis. Jacobs’ poll, conducted by Hill Research Consultants, found Jacobs and Braley essentially tied (Jacobs 42 percent, Braley 41 percent), with more upside than for Jacobs because of the Democrat’s higher name recognition.

I agree with the Republicans who claimed that Jacobs’ higher name recognition and GOP support is merely a function of his heavy spending on paid advertising. He should be polling better after two months of radio and television while his opponents’ campaigns are dark. On the other hand, who’s going to stop him if his GOP rivals lack the resources to get their message out before June?

Small but important victory: White House officials revealed yesterday that President Barack Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year will not include Social Security cuts he proposed last year. The president had hoped Congressional Republicans would agree to small tax increases in exchange for using the “chained Consumer Price Index” to calculate annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security recipients. It’s a terrible idea that never should have emerged from a Democratic administration.

Maybe Obama recognized that in an election year, he was never going to get any real Republican concession in exchange for cuts that would inflict real pain on seniors who rely on Social Security. Democrats may need to fight this battle again before the end of Obama’s presidency, though.

[White House] Spokesman Josh Earnest said the decision to move away from chained CPI was motivated partially by the “substantial progress in reducing the deficit.” […]

Earnest repeatedly insisted that Obama would still consider chained CPI as part of a grand bargain on the debt, and that the move “does not reflect any reduction in the president’s willingness to try to meet Republicans in the middle.”

For now, Congressional Democrats are celebrating. Senators including Iowa’s Tom Harkin had strongly urged the president to abandon the “chained CPI” proposal. More than 100 House Democrats, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02), sent a similar letter to Obama this week. After the jump I’ve posted press releases from Harkin and Braley about the issue. UPDATE: Added a comment from Loebsack below.

It’s been nearly ten months since former State Representative Rod Roberts confirmed that he was considering a campaign for U.S. Senate. I’ve long been a skeptic that Roberts has any niche or large constituency in a statewide Republican primary. In fact, I’d forgotten he was still thinking about the race. This week Carroll-based journalist Douglas Burns got the scoop in an interview: Roberts will not run for Senate, or Congress in the open third district, or for Iowa secretary of state in 2014. He cited family reasons and said he plans to continue his work as director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals. In late 2010, then Governor-elect Terry Branstad offered Roberts that position without considering any other candidates, even though Roberts had not applied for the job.

Burns has long been high on Roberts as a possible Senate candidate, but for once I agree with Steve Deace: “Rod didn’t offer a reason other than, ‘I’m Rod Roberts and I’m a nice guy.’ What’s your plan? […] Offer people something.” In his latest column, Burns floats the scenario of Roberts emerging as a compromise Senate nominee at a statewide convention if none of the current candidates receives 35 percent of the vote in the June primary.

Not bloody likely.

I do largely agree with Burns’ assessment of Mark Jacobs, though. Many Iowa Republicans will be skeptical of a candidate who only recently moved back to the state. Nor will they cut Jacobs slack for giving money to Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jon Corzine in 2000, on the grounds that Corzine was CEO of Goldman Sachs, where Jacobs worked at the time.

I have a post in progress with more news on the Jacobs campaign. Meanwhile, any comments about the U.S. Senate race are welcome in this thread.

Last week Jennifer Jacobs wrote a strange feature for the Des Moines Register exploring why the “No Labels” movement is not gaining more traction in Iowa.

A better question: why would smart guys like State Senator Jeff Danielson or U.S. Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack hitch their wagons to this useless group? Leaders of No Labels express grand ambitions to “make government work again,” but the organization looks more like make-work for political consultants who are between campaign jobs. Resting on false premises, No Labels promotes the wrong “fix” for what’s broken in public policy. It’s also a classic example of a Washington-based astroturf (that is, fake grassroots) movement.  

Sam Clovis dodged what could have been a fatal blow to his U.S. Senate campaign when Bob Vander Plaats decided not to run. But to have any hope of winning the GOP primary, the Sioux City-based college professor and former radio host needs to raise real money and consolidate social conservative support quickly.  

Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker was the first Republican to enter the race for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat but has struggled a bit in the fundraising department. Whitaker ended 2014 with $232,092.45 cash on hand in his campaign account, including $50,241.07 in loans from the candidate and $28,525 that can’t be spent until the general election period (if Whitaker were to win the Republican primary).

Considering that Whitaker’s campaign spent just under $60,000 during the last three months of 2013 without running television or radio commercials, it’s clear that Whitaker won’t be able to afford much (if any) television advertising before the June primary.

However, campaign commercials aren’t the only way for a candidate to raise his name recognition. Central Iowa viewers of the winter Olympics on NBC Sports have seen a lot of Whitaker these past couple of weeks. The cable tv ads are promoting his law firm, not his Senate campaign, but they hit on several themes that will resonate favorably with rank-and-file Republicans. Follow me after the jump for my unofficial transcript of the spot for Whitaker, Hagenow and Gustoff LLB. I would like to know whether any Bleeding Heartland readers living outside the Des Moines media market have seen the same commercial on cable, either during Olympics coverage or at other times.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’ve decided that the best way to deal with NBC’s horrible Olympics coverage is to tape and watch later or the following day, fast-forwarding over the endless commercials and filler material. It’s amazing how few events and competitors you see during hours of watching NBC. Prime-time is the worst, but even the daytime coverage is very light.

Ever heard the old blogging expression, “Don’t feed the trolls”? New psychological research shows that it’s good advice, because being an internet troll is correlated with personality traits such as “Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).” I appreciate commenters who bring substance or a different perspective to the table, but engaging with trolls is pointless.

Speaking of wasting time, how would you like to be one of the people who supposedly helped lay the groundwork for Bob Vander Plaats to run for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat? Whether sincere fans or soulless political consultants, they turned out to be props helping him drum up publicity for his new pet project. Outside a certain conservative subculture, few people would have cared that this has-been wrote a book, if not for the extensive media speculation in recent months that Vander Plaats would join the IA-Sen Republican field.

This is an open thread. All topics welcome.

Jennifer Jacobs has the exclusive for today’s Des Moines Register: three-time Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has decided not to run for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat. He had previously appeared to be leaning toward running and had promised to make a decision by February 15. While some observers may be surprised he opted out, given polls showing him leading the GOP field, no one can be surprised by his reason:

Instead, his priority is his new book, “If 7:14.” It’s based on a Bible passage that says if people pray and turn from their wicked ways, God will hear and heal their land.

Vander Plaats said he has been booked for speaking engagements across the country, including at the Billy Graham Evangelical Association in North Carolina a few weeks ago, the New Canaan Society in Florida, a conference in Texas next week with pastors from large churches, and the National Council of Religious Broadcasters the following week.

“When God seems to be blessing an initiative, and there’s a lot of opportunity with that initiative, it’s hard to walk away,” he said.

That’s the BVP Iowans know and love (or at least love to hate): always happy to promote himself.

I think Vander Plaats recognizes that his ship has sailed in Iowa politics. He would have zero chance of beating Bruce Braley in a statewide election and might not even win a Republican primary. All he could accomplish in a Senate campaign is mess things up for Matt Whitaker and Sam Clovis. They are fighting over the “principled conservative” niche against establishment-friendly GOP candidates Joni Ernst and Mark Jacobs. I would call Clovis the big winner from today’s news, since he is the most natural fit for social conservative voters who might have been drawn to BVP. Clovis is trying to repeat the grassroots strategy Rick Santorum used in his 2012 Iowa caucus campaign.

UPDATE: Added the press release from the FAMiLY Leader below. Vander Plaats is such a shameless showboater.

SECOND UPDATE: Added more details below from Steve Deace, a big supporter of Vander Plaats’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

Of the four leading Republican candidates for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat, three have denounced this week’s vote to suspend the federal government’s debt ceiling.

The odd man out is trying to avoid the subject.

President Barack Obama addresses both houses of Congress tonight. The big policy news will be a new executive order requiring federal contractors to pay workers hourly wages of at least $10.10. The move could affect hundreds of thousands of workers. Last year the president proposed increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, but Senator Tom Harkin and other liberal Democrats argued for raising the wage to $10.10. Obama indicated his support for that wage level in November.

I will update this post later with highlights from tonight’s speech and reaction from Iowa’s Congressional delegation. Meanwhile, this thread is for any comments about the substance or the politics of the State of the Union address.

On a related note, I hope Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is right about the president refusing to negotiate with Congressional Republicans over raising the debt ceiling.

UPDATE: Click here for the full transcript of the president’s speech, as prepared. I’ve added some Iowa reaction after the jump.

Who attended their Democratic or Republican precinct caucuses tonight? I was at Indian Hills Junior High School, where Democrats and Republicans from Windsor Heights, Clive, and some parts of West Des Moines gathered. Not surprisingly, turnout was low on the Democratic side, with light snow and temperatures in the teens shortly before 7 pm. Approximately 60 people total showed up from the eight or nine precincts at our location. A representative from Staci Appel’s campaign addressed Democrats at our caucus, as did a gubernatorial candidate I’d never heard of: Zachary Newbrough of West Des Moines. His key issues include improving education, mental health reform, embracing diversity in Iowa, and smokers’ rights (although he didn’t mention the last one at the caucus).

I didn’t sit in on the Republican caucuses, but I walked by their rooms after they broke into precincts from Windsor Heights and Clive. By my count, each precinct had approximately 15-20 participants. Although the weather was bad today, I expected more Republicans to come out tonight, given that Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign and several GOP candidates were said to be mobilizing supporters. Branstad’s team wants to make sure the state convention backs Kim Reynolds for lieutenant governor, and the Republican nominations for IA-03 and U.S. Senate may be decided at conventions if no candidate wins at least 35 percent of the vote.

Any comments about the off-year caucuses are welcome in this thread. I’d particularly like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers on caucus turnout in the first Congressional district, where the Democratic and Republican nominations could conceivably go to conventions.

For the second time in a week, Iowa’s Democratic representatives in the U.S. House Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for a bill calling attention to problems with the federal government’s implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Depending on whom you believe, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act is either an effort to improve oversight and transparency through weekly updates or what Representative Henry Waxman called an attempt to impede the new law by “drowning the Department of Health and Human Services in red tape.” Nevertheless, 33 Democrats including Braley and Loebsack joined all of the Republicans present to approve the bill yesterday (roll call). I haven’t seen any comment on this bill from them or from Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Tom Latham (IA-03), who both supported it.

No matter how many anti-Obamacare bills Braley and Loebsack vote for, their opponents and outside conservative groups will run campaign ads attacking them for having helped pass the 2010 health care reform law. In fact, Americans for Prosperity (a right-wing group funded by the Koch brothers) is running television commercials in Iowa right now targeting Braley, the Democratic candidate to replace Tom Harkin in the U.S. Senate. The commercials focus on the so-called “lie of the year,” President Barack Obama’s claim that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan.” Scroll to the end of this post to read the Braley’s campaign’s response, which includes the ad script. In November, Braley and Loebsack voted for a bill that would let some consumers stay on insurance plans that don’t comply with all Affordable Care Act requirements.

In recent years, Congress has funded the federal government mostly through a series of continuing spending resolutions. But yesterday, the U.S. House approved an omnibus budget bill that would fund most federal agencies through September 30 (the end of the 2014 fiscal year). The massive bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 359 votes to 67. All but three Democrats present voted yes, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-03). Republican Tom Latham also supported the bill, but Representative Steve King (IA-04) was among the 64 conservatives who voted no.

I’ve enclosed statements from Loebsack and King below. (I have not seen any public comment from Braley or Latham) Loebsack called attention to provisions he fought to include in the omnibus budget bill. King’s statement on yesterday’s vote is just one sentence long–the shortest comment I can ever remember receiving from his office.

Because the bill is so massive, it’s hard to get a handle on the good news and bad news. Here’s a summary of spending levels for various agencies. It looks like many domestic areas will be funded above “sequester” levels, including nutrition for Women, Infants and Children and some transportation programs. Some anti-environmental riders sought by Congressional Republicans were removed before the bill came up for a vote. Others made the cut, such as language supporting incandescent light bulbs and investments in overseas coal projects.  

As Republicans prepare to make “Obamacare” a central argument against any incumbents who voted for the 2010 health care reform law, many House Democrats are looking for political cover. So it was on Friday, when a third of the Democratic caucus voted for the latest Republican bill in the U.S. House targeting the law. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

The one-sentence bill says that no later than two business days after any security breach on an ObamaCare site is discovered, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to each individual.” […] The White House said it opposed the bill, arguing the government already has plans to tell people if their information has been compromised. […]

Democrats said the GOP was trying to stir up fears about HealthCare.gov and the other enrollment sites by raising the idea that people’s personal information could be stolen.

“There have been no successful security attacks on HealthCare.gov, and no one has maliciously accessed personal information,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). “This is just another one of those scare tactics, and I just hope that my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, are not fooled by this.”

The roll call on the “Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act” shows that Iowa Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 67 House Democrats who joined all the Republicans present to approve this bill by a large margin. Neither called attention to the vote with a press release. After the jump I’ve posted the statement from Representative Steve King (IA-04), who has long been one of the most vocal critics of the Affordable Care Act. I didn’t see any statement from Tom Latham (IA-03), who also voted for this bill.

Like the last anti-Obamacare measure Braley and Loebsack supported, this bill will neither become law nor insulate the Democrats from attacks during this year’s campaigns for U.S. Senate or Iowa’s second Congressional district.  

Talk about lousy timing: just before a chemical spill made tap water unusable for 300,000 West Virginians, the U.S. House approved a bill that would “weaken the nation’s hazardous waste laws and place American communities at increased risk of toxic exposure.” The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 (H.R. 2279) includes three bills House Republicans drafted last year. In a letter signed by 129 public interest groups, Earth Justice listed the key points of each bill and explained why the package would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.” I’ve posted an excerpt from that open letter after the jump. In a post for the Earth Justice blog last week, Lisa Evans called this bill “Kryptonite for Superfund” and “a con job of the highest order, allowing polluters to walk away without losing a penny, while taxpayers are left footing the bill.”

Under its current leadership, the House has been called “the most anti-environmental House in our nation’s history” because of the many bills passed that would curtail federal regulations and take power away from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Occasionally Iowa’s two House Democrats have gone along with those efforts, but I was pleased to see that on January 9, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the latest effort to hamstring the EPA and for the Democratic motion to recommit this bill with instructions (often a last-ditch effort to kill legislation in the House). Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) lived up to their abysmal voting records on the environment by voting for the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act and against the motion to recommit.

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

I didn’t post a year-end summary of Iowa politics news from 2013, but two big stories are obvious bookends: Senator Tom Harkin’s decision in January not to seek re-election, and Representative Tom Latham following suit in December. Other important developments ranged from the surprising (a highly productive legislative session despite divided control) to the expected (Representative Steve King making national news with offensive remarks).

The Sioux City Journal compiled King’s highlight reel for 2013. “Cantaloupe calves” seems destined to become a lasting catch phrase, and may stir nightmares for Republican strategists hoping to make inroads with Latino voters. But King can feel successful in that immigration reform now appears less likely to pass than it did early last year.

State Senator Brad Zaun will have company in the Republican primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Today David Young told the Des Moines Register that he is ending his U.S. Senate campaign to run in IA-03.

In an exclusive interview, Young said when he began pondering a run for elective office he had the 3rd in mind, assuming that Latham would run for the Senate seat opened by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin’s retirement in 2014.

Shifting to the Senate race made sense once Latham took himself out of that contest. As of September 30, Young had $124,052.27 cash on hand for his Senate campaign, which would go further in a Congressional district than in a statewide primary.

Meanwhile, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz announced today on Facebook, “I have received a lot of support and encouragement as I have considered becoming a candidate for Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District. Next week, I will be making an important and exciting announcement about this race and my future plans to fight for Iowa.” I’m no marketing guru, but I think it’s more exciting to say what you’re doing than to promise “an important and exciting annoucement” soon. I suppose the idea is to make the news twice instead of once. Zaun took the same approach.

I agree with John Deeth’s preview of a forthcoming IA-03 Republican debate: “Mr. Schultz, explain your position on the farm bill. ‘Voter ID.’ Should we intervene in Syria? ‘Voter ID.’”

State Senator Jack Whitver confirmed today that he will run for re-election in Iowa Senate district 19 rather than run for Congress in IA-03. Likewise, State Representative Chris Hagenow will pass on the Congressional race to seek re-election to House district 43 and as House majority whip. In a message to supporters, Hagenow wrote, “Serving in Washington D.C. at this time will not allow me to be the husband and father that I have promised to my family.  After prayerful consideration, we believe that I can best serve the people of Iowa by continuing my work in the state legislature.”

Former State Representative Bob Krause announced on Facebook a few minutes ago that he is withdrawing from the Iowa governor’s race after exploring a candidacy for most of 2013. He has endorsed State Senator Jack Hatch in the Democratic primary and plans to “act as a surrogate speaker and policy advisor to the Hatch campaign,” specifically helping with outreach to veterans and labor unions.

Krause also announced that he plans to run against U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley in 2016. He was one of three Democrats who challenged Grassley in 2010 and finished second in the primary with just under 13 percent of the vote. He urged Iowa Democrats “to give me the same clean shot at defeating a sitting incumbent as I am giving Jack Hatch.” I’ve posted excerpts from Krause’s Facebook post after the jump.

Krause has long been an advocate for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and/or military sexual trauma. This weekend he is organizing a workshop in Urbandale on responding to military sexual trauma.  

Lining up with a Republican pollster’s survey last month, Quinnipiac’s latest Iowa poll shows Democrat Bruce Braley with single-digit leads over all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, despite record low approval for President Barack Obama. Full results are here. Key findings:

President Barack Obama gets a negative 38 – 59 percent job approval rating among Iowa voters, according to a poll released today, his lowest score in the state and one of his lowest in any state or national survey conducted by Quinnipiac University. […]

President Obama gets negative scores of 30 – 67 percent among men, 45 – 51 percent among women, 7 – 93 percent among Republicans and 31 – 62 percent among independent voters. Democrats approve 82 – 15 percent. […]

In the 2014 Senate race, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, the Democrat, gets 43 percent, while U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker, the Republican, gets 40 percent. Braley tops other possible Republican contenders:

44 – 38 percent over State Sen. Joni Ernst;

46 – 37 percent over businessman Mark Jacobs;

44 – 36 percent over former U.S. Senate aide David Young;

45 – 34 percent over radio commentator Sam Clovis;

46 – 40 percent over political activist Bob Vander Plaats. […]

Iowa voters say 46 – 41 percent that they want the Republican Party to control the U.S. Senate.

The usual caveat applies: this poll of 1,617 registered voters has a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, but a survey of Iowa voters eleven months before the midterm election doesn’t necessarily reflect the group of Iowans who will cast ballots next fall.  

Any comments about the U.S. Senate race are welcome in this thread. Braley will be pleased to be leading every Republican, even among respondents who overwhelmingly do not approve of President Obama’s job performance and narrowly prefer GOP control of the U.S. Senate. He should be behind in this survey.

Iowa Republicans can take heart that Braley is below 50 percent against every opponent, despite having higher name recognition.

Before I got sidetracked by the shocking news about Tom Latham, I was working on a post about Republican Mark Jacobs’ first television commercial, which hit the airwaves yesterday. Follow me after the jump for the video and transcript.

I’m not sure it’s a great use of campaign funds to advertise during the holiday season nearly six months before the primary, but Jacobs is the only Republican candidate for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat who can afford to buy tv time. He may as well exploit that advantage. The Jacobs campaign went up on statewide radio earlier this month. This relatively small buy of $138,000 will run the introductory spot on cable statewide and on network television in the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Sioux City markets through January 4. Sioux City is the home base for Senate candidate Sam Clovis, who needs a strong showing in northwest Iowa to have any hope of winning the nomination.  

The U.S. House adjourned for the rest of 2013 yesterday after approving several major bills. By a surprisingly large 332 to 94 majority (roll call), representatives approved The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a federal budget compromise worked out by Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan. Most of the House GOP caucus supported the budget deal, including Tom Latham (IA-03). Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 163 Democrats who voted for the budget deal. Steve King (IA-04) was one of the 62 Republicans who voted no because the agreement increased domestic discretionary spending. The 32 House Democrats who opposed the deal objected to the fact that it did not include an extension of unemployment benefits, did not reverse more of the “sequester” federal spending cuts, and increased federal worker contributions to their pensions.

Also yesterday, House members passed by voice vote a one-month extension to most federal agricultural programs, giving a conference committee more time to work out a deal on a long-term Farm Bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the upper chamber won’t pass any more short-term farm bill extensions, but he’ll probably have to backtrack now to prevent farm programs from expiring on January 1.

Finally, the House approved by 350 votes to 69 a compromise on the defense authorization bill. All four Iowans voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, negotiated informally by House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders after the Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the defense authorization bill before Thanksgiving. I need more time to read up on what’s in the final compromise, so will cover the details of the defense authorization bill in a future post.

After the jump I’ve enclosed comments on yesterday’s votes from the Iowans in Congress and some of the candidates for U.S. House and Senate, where available. UPDATE: Added more comments below. However, Steve King has uncharacteristically not released a statement explaining his vote on the budget compromise. His office did not respond to my request for comment or to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth.

Governor Terry Branstad announced today that his administration and officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have struck a deal over the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, our state’s alternative to a straightforward Medicaid expansion. Earlier this week, federal officials approved most of the proposal but rejected a provision that would have kicked some low-income Iowans off the plan if they failed to pay monthly premiums. Under the tentative agreement, Iowa would still be able to charge premiums to some people who did not meet wellness criteria, but those people would not lose coverage for not paying the premiums. A statement released by the governor’s office is after the jump.

Branstad had the option of appealing the HHS decision, and Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen suggested yesterday that Iowa officials should fight for the whole plan state legislators approved in May. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal argued that the governor should “take the deal” federal officials approved: “It wasn’t the whole nine yards, but it was about 8.9 yards. It was most of what we asked for.” Commenting on this evening’s news, Senate President Pam Jochum said, “Hallelujah. Amen. […] I can’t imagine the governor would have wanted to be held responsible for 55,000-plus people losing coverage come Jan. 1.”

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Charging even small health insurance premiums to people making less than $11,000 a year is stupid in my opinion, but this compromise is better than no coverage for tens of thousands of Iowans.

P.S.- Can’t help noticing how just like the messaging from his re-election campaign, the governor’s press releases invariably mention Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds whenever possible. I doubt she played any role in these negotiations or the governor’s decision not to appeal the HHS decision on the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan.

UPDATE: Added comments from Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) below. Last week he wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius urging the federal government to approve a waiver for Iowa.

Time to catch up on news about the many Republicans running for or thinking about running for Senator Tom Harkin’s seat next year. Links about most of the contenders are after the jump.

Any comments about the IA-Sen race are welcome in this thread.

Only one Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Iowa seems to have the financial resources to run paid advertising statewide, and Mark Jacobs is poised to exploit that advantage. Jennifer Jacobs (no relation) reported for the Des Moines Register that the Jacobs campaign is running a 60-second radio spot.

In the ad, Jacobs talks about being born and raised in Iowa, “growing up around a small family business,” and early jobs delivering newspapers and working at Hy-Vee. A voice-over repeatedly refers to Jacobs as a leader in the business world, adding that Jacobs was “educated in Iowa schools.” The language touches on major themes of the Jacobs campaign while addressing one of his big weaknesses–having lived outside Iowa for a few decades. I’ve posted the script after the jump and will add the audio if the candidate posts it on his YouTube channel or campaign website.

Speaking of websites, whoever is running Jacobs’ “news” page needs to stop posting the full text of newspaper articles about the candidate. I’m not an attorney, but my understanding is that “fair use” under copyright law would involve a link to the original publication in the Fort Dodge Messenger or the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, plus an excerpt of a few paragraphs. Currently the Jacobs campaign website rips off the entire texts of newspaper profiles, then adds a useless link at the bottom: “View article as it originally appeared here.” No one’s going to click through once they’ve read the whole piece already. Unless Jacobs has explicit permission from the original publishers, his website should post shorter excerpts.

UPDATE: Scroll to the end of this post to listen to the audio.

SECOND UPDATE: Jacobs was a guest on the December 8 edition of Dave Price’s program “The Insiders” on WHO-TV. Toward the end of the show, Jacobs said he had never voted for any Democratic candidate. Asked about the 2012 Iowa caucuses, Jacobs said he did not support anyone in those caucuses–but tactfully did not mention that he didn’t move back to Iowa until later that year.

Last month Iowa politicians from both parties expressed outrage after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal to alter the Renewable Fuel Standard on how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. At an EPA hearing in Washington today, Representative Bruce Braley (a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee) and Governor Terry Branstad both testified against reducing the Renewable Fuel Standard. Several Iowa farmers and representatives of corn and soybeans growers also spoke and met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy afterwards.

After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Braley’s office containing highlights from his remarks and a link to the video. Branstad warned that reducing the RFS could lead to another farm crisis like the one Iowa experienced during the 1980s. I will add more details from his testimony if they become available. I expect both Braley and Branstad to feature their advocacy for ethanol and biodiesel in their campaigns for the U.S. Senate and governor next year.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that last month, Branstad’s re-election campaign created a “Protect the Renewable Fuel Standard” website. I’ve added more details on that effort below. Like the pro-Olympic wrestling site the campaign launched earlier this year, ProtectTheRFS.com presents as a petition supporting a popular cause in Iowa, doubling as a way to build the Branstad campaign’s contact list.

The progressive 501(c)4 group Americans United for Change announced today that it will run a commercial on Des Moines-based television stations to support the Renewable Fuels Standard. Scroll to the end of this post for the video and transcript. The ad encourages viewers to send their comments to the EPA by visiting a website called SavetheRFS.com (a list-building effort like the one Branstad’s campaign created). The veterans political action committee VoteVets.org, which is part of the Americans United for Change coalition, operates SavetheRFS.com.

SECOND UPDATE: Added more comments from Branstad below.

A new Harper Polling/Conservative intel survey shows Democrat Bruce Braley narrowly leading five Republicans running for the U.S. Senate, even though a generic Republican slightly leads a generic Democrat among the sample.

Harper Polling surveyed 985 likely Iowa voters (whatever that means a year before the election) on November 23 and 24. The sample should have produced great results for GOP candidates; about 39 percent described themselves as conservatives, 37 percent moderates, and just under 18 percent liberals. Only 39 percent of respondents described themselves as “Obamacare supporters” while more than 52 percent were “Obamacare opponents.” Nearly 38 percent of the sample said they were Republicans, less than 35 percent Democrats, and less than 28 percent no-party voters. That’s not far off the statewide turnout for the 2010 midterm election. Iowa Democrats hope to improve on that dismal turnout next year.

Despite a respondent pool that would seem to favor the GOP, a generic Republican Senate candidate leads a generic Democrat by only 42 percent to 38 percent in the new Harper Polling survey. Braley had small leads (between 3 percent and 6 percent) in named match-ups against Sam Clovis, Joni Ernst, Mark Jacobs, Matt Whitaker, and David Young. I wouldn’t read too much into those head to head numbers, because Braley had far higher name recognition than any of the Republicans, as we’ve seen in several other IA-Sen polls. Still, Braley has to be encouraged to be leading GOP candidates in a survey with a conservative-leaning sample.

Any comments about the Senate race are welcome in this thread.

Catching up on news from last week, former energy company chief financial officer Mark Jacobs is now an official candidate for the U.S. Senate. His campaign is on the web here, on Facebook here, and on Twitter here. Scroll to the end of this post to read his announcement speech in full, or listen to it at Radio Iowa. The key excerpt: “Jobs are my top priority. In fact, you can’t spell Jacobs without jobs. And if you send me to the United States Senate, I will make jobs for Iowa my number one priority.”  

Here’s my first take on Jacobs’ strengths and weaknesses in the crowded Republican field. Any comments about the Senate race are welcome in this thread.  

Mark Jacobs officially launched his campaign for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat today. I’ll post a roundup of news clips and early thoughts on his strengths and weaknesses tomorrow.

First, I want to highlight the biggest reason Jacobs will be a serious contender for the nomination: the poor fundraising by other declared Republican candidates for Senate.

Governor Terry Branstad suggested at his regular weekly press conference this morning that he is open to changing state law to provide for run-off elections where no candidate wins at least 35 percent of the vote in a primary. Under current law, a Democratic or Republican special nominating convention is required if no candidate hits the 35 percent threshold in the primary for a state or federal office. You can listen to the audio from Branstad’s press conference at Radio Iowa. He starts talking about this issue around the 16-minute mark.

At least seven GOP candidates are running for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat, with more considering, and five Democrats are running in the first Congressional district. I would not rule out a clear winner emerging in both contests next June, but I also would not be surprised to see a convention decide at least one nomination, especially in the Senate race.

Eleven states, mostly in the South, currently provide for run-off elections in come primaries. Historically, the system has been seen as a way to prevent African-American candidates from winning primaries in the former Confederacy, although that may be a myth. I can see the case for holding a run-off election between the top two vote-getters in a crowded primary, rather than letting a small number of party insiders choose the nominee at a convention.

Share your own thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: I did not realize that Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker had his own reform ideas for the system. Details are after the jump.