Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal discussed the film tax credit fiasco on this weekend’s Iowa Press program, and it sounds like defenders of the tax credit will be fighting an uphill battle during next year’s legislative session:

“I think we’re going to get this investigation from the Attorney General and from the State Auditor. I think we’re going to do a good evaluation of the program and if we can’t show a real benefit to the state of Iowa – and not just a few part-time jobs, but a real long-term benefit to the state of Iowa – I think it’s 50-50 as to whether this program continues.”

According to Gronstal, he and other legislators right now “see very little in terms of potential benefits” to the state from the film tax credits which have been awarded already.  […]

Gronstal says he may regret having voted to create the program and he expects some political fall-out from this episode.

“People will be disappointed in that, but I think it’s the responsibility of the legislature – we try things in economic development. Everything we try doesn’t work and it’s perfectly o.k. to occasionally decide, ‘You know, we’ve (gone) down a road and that road doesn’t make as much as sense as we thought it made,’” Gronstal says. “And so we’re going to go back and change that.”

Gronstal also defended Governor Chet Culver, saying “once he found out about [problems with the film tax credit] he acted quickly and put the program on hold and got people to investigate.”

Gronstal expressed surprise that a flood of applications for film tax credits this spring allowed producers to get around the $50 million annual cap the legislature approved for the program. (Note to legislators: next time you cap a tax credit, make the law go into effect immediately on being signed by the governor.)

Culver has ordered a comprehensive review of all Iowa tax credits, and Gronstal made clear that legislators will subject these programs to additional scrutiny in the coming year:

“If you can show that a tax credit creates a climate, for instance, the research activities tax credit – if you can show that that keeps an industry here in the state of Iowa and builds long-term jobs and high-wage, high-skills jobs in this state where there’s a net benefit to the state by having that set of jobs come along with it, yeah, that makes sense,” Gronstal says.  But Gronstal says if you can’t show that, then the tax credit should be repealed.

A critical analysis of Iowa’s tax credits is overdue, but better late than never. State revenues continue to lag behind projections because of the recession. Repealing wasteful tax credits could reduce the size of state spending cuts during the 2010 fiscal year. Iowa Republicans would like to plug the budget gap entirely through spending cuts, but they forget that deep spending reductions by state and local governments can also be a drag on the economy.  

The short of it is because Republicans have ZERO chance of taking back the Senate anytime soon.  I’ve felt since the ruling that it probably would never get overturned.  I got curious today and decided to investigate further.  So I started to think like a social conservative (it was scary) and tried to find any feasible way for this to pass the Lege in the near future.  

It will not pass in the 2010 session according to both the House and Senate leadership.  So the Repubs best hope is for a successful election in 2010 to make it possible.  It is in the realm of possibility that Repubs take back the House.  I really don’t think they will, but there are a lot of competitive races that could flip in a good year for them.  I could even see an amendment passing that chamber in the next couple sessions with “six-pack” help.  Incidentally, there are quite a few Republican-held seats that could flip for us in a good year as well.  I think redistricting will help us in 2012 too, but that is for another post.

The Senate is a different story.  There are precisely 4 competitive Democrat-held Senate districts that are up for re-election in 2010.  Those are, with 2006 results:

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 5

Rich Olive                       Democrat            11224

James Kurtenbach          

Republican          11162

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 9

Bill Heckroth                   Democrat            11902

James Kurtenbach          

Republican          10556

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 37

Staci Appel                     Democrat             12827

Julian Garrett                  Republican            12055

STATE  SENATOR DISTRICT 45

Becky Schmitz                Democrat              10362

David Miller                    Republican             10178

Source: Iowa SOS Website

Even if Republicans pull off all four of these races they will still be down 28-22.  I tend to think that Olive and Schmitz are safe.  Schmitz especially after the Hanson victory, which is half her district.  I don’t know much about Heckroth.  I currently reside in Appel’s district and that is going to be a dog fight I’d wager.    I’m going to do everything I can to help her (and you should too).  

That means that in all likelihood (and I trust Gronstal won’t budge, he tends not too)  That a constitutional amendment cannot possibly pass the Senate until AFTER the 2012 election.   We’ll have a guy named Obama at the top of the ticket that year and will hopefully improve down ballot organizing from ’08.  I like our chances.

My prediction is that it never even gets put to a vote.  Based on the above, the EARLIEST it could come up would be 2016.  I’m confident it would be soundly defeated by then if that were the case.  The polls already show it about even.  

My other prediction is that Republicans will go all out on this issue and thus alienate a whole generation of Iowans who are turned off by their bigoted agenda. I think this has already happened to an extent with Bush and company, but it will be a real problem for them in the future.  

Next year’s campaign in Iowa Senate district 37 will be closely watched statewide and may draw some national attention. Republican State Representative Kent Sorenson has decided to challenge first-term Senator Staci Appel instead of seeking re-election to Iowa House district 74. The socially conservative Sorenson made a splash this summer with his open letter imploring Senator Chuck Grassley to provide “principled and bold leadership” to advance the Republican Party platform. Appel is assistant Senate majority leader and chairs the State Government Committee. Her husband is one of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously struck down our Defense of Marriage Act in April.

Republican blogger Craig Robinson is upbeat about Sorenson’s chances.

My opinion on this matchup hasn’t changed since Robinson first discussed the prospect in May: Bring it on.

State Senator Jerry Behn of Boone is officially launching his gubernatorial campaign today, after appearing at numerous Republican events around the state this summer. Radio Iowa posted Behn’s news release here. It’s nothing you haven’t heard before: he wants to rein in “excessive spending” and let Iowans vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (as if we subject minority rights to a majority vote in this country).

Behn also touts his experience as a farmer growing corn and soybeans: “Common Sense is an integral part of farming. You also learn firsthand lessons in freedom, individual responsibility and self reliance.” I’ll wager that Behn’s business model depends on getting subsidy checks from the federal government every year. Most small business owners have to do without those.

Getting back to the news of the day, I see no promising niche for Behn in the Republican field. Whether or not Terry Branstad decides to run for governor, Behn looks to me like he’s fishing to be someone’s running mate. He has nothing to lose by staying in the race, since he was just re-elected to represent Senate district 24 in 2008.

Speaking of gubernatorial candidates with no hope of getting the nomination, Senate minority leader Paul McKinley was a no-show at the Black Hawk County Republican dinner on Sunday. He is not even pretending to run a real campaign.

As for serious contenders, Bob Vander Plaats will officially launch his campaign on Labor Day. Christian Fong was the first candidate to go up on radio statewide. State Representatives Chris Rants and Rod Roberts are still in the exploratory phase but have actively campaigned this summer. Branstad has said he will decide by October whether to run for governor again.

UPDATE: What a joke. After claiming his main issue is balancing the budget, Behn tells Kathie Obradovich and Jason Clayworth of the Des Moines Register that he would have the goal of eliminating Iowa’s state income tax to increase Iowa’s population:

He looks to no-tax states like Texas, Nevada and Florida as models. (And notes that South Dakota also has no income tax.)

But, he said, he doesn’t have a plan for replacing the revenue needed to run the state.

Raise your hand if you want Iowa’s schools and other public services to sink to the levels found in those no-income-tax states. I didn’t think so.

Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson comments,

Unfortunately, Behn forgot to mention his get-rid-of-state-income-taxes idea during his half-hour discussion with reporters from Radio Iowa and The Cedar Rapids Gazette. Nor did Behn bring that up during his interview with WHO-TV or during his interview with IowaPolitics.com.

Not ready for prime time.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement on Wednesday filed an ethics complaint against the Iowa Pharmacy Association, which entertained Governor Chet Culver and numerous state legislators in February but did not disclose the reception until after journalists started asking questions five months later. State Representative Kerry Burt, who attended the event, was arrested later that night for drunk driving. From an August 5 Iowa CCI press release:

Iowa CCI’s initial research has uncovered 26 additional late-filing disclosure violations by lobbyist groups during the 2009 legislative session.  This amount represents nearly one-third of the 90 reports that were filed in 2009.

“Today we are focusing on the Iowa Pharmacy Association because its disclosure violation is the most egregious example of abuse of the law by special-interest lobbyists, particularly because they only filed after they were caught,” [Iowa CCI’s State Policy Organizing Director Adam] Mason said.

This emerging and growing political scandal raises new questions about the ability of the House and Senate Ethics Committees to accurately monitor and regulate these types of events.

In 2005, state lawmakers voted to strip oversight powers from the nonpartisan State Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board and task the House and Senate Ethics Committees with oversight responsibilities.  Since then, the number of reported filings have gone down, as has the reported amount of money spent at lobbying events.

I called Mason today with more questions and learned that Iowa CCI filed the complaint with the secretary of the Iowa Senate and the chief clerk of the Iowa House. According to Mason, the Iowa House and Senate Ethics Committees cannot investigate this kind of disclosure violation in the absence of a complaint filed by a third party.

The trouble is, no third party would typically be in a position to set this process in motion. If not for Burt’s bad judgment and bad luck, the public would never have known that the Iowa Pharmacy Association wined and dined policy-makers in February. Iowa CCI has been comparing the disclosure reports filed against the social calendar for legislators from the 2009 session, but Mason told me that not all details about entertainment offered to state legislators are available to the public. Some industry groups provide free travel, food or drinks to lawmakers when the legislature is out of session.

More disturbing, no one on the House or Senate Ethics Committees seems to be taking responsibility for enforcing the disclosure rules. In April, Senate Ethics Committee Vice Chairman Dick Dearden admitted that no one checks the reception disclosures against the legislators’ social calendar. The Des Moines Register reported at the time that Dearden “does not recall any organization ever being punished for not filing reception disclosures properly.”

Legislators should stop pretending to care about money in politics and start addressing real problems with our current system of campaign finance and lobbying. A good start would be to give oversight powers back to the State Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

I’ve posted Iowa CCI’s full press release after the jump.

UPDATE: Forgot to link to Jason Hancock’s piece on this subject at Iowa Independent.

July 1, 2009 is a big day: the 4,800 residents of Windsor Heights are no longer divided by three zip codes. It couldn’t have happened without Congressman Leonard Boswell’s legislative efforts last year, and that probably wouldn’t have happened without Ed Fallon’s primary challenge. (Note: WHO’s Dave Price attended last night’s event celebrating our new zip code.)

Don’t feel left out if you’re among the 3 million Iowans who aren’t enjoying the good life in our state’s only inner-ring suburb. You too may be affected by one of the many laws that take effect today.

The Iowa House Democrats posted a partial list of these laws on their site, and Jason Hancock provided additional information at Iowa Independent, such as the margin by which these bills passed during the 2009 session. Many won unanimous approval or overwhelming bipartisan majorities in one or both chambers.

Most of the new laws are steps in the right direction for Iowa: increased foreclosure protections; $30 million in historic tax credits; expanded health care for children, low-income pregnant women and adult children under 25; broader eligibility for wind energy tax credits; more job protection for volunteer emergency providers, electronic logbooks to track pseudoephedrine sales. A few of the highlights on the House Democrats’ list deserve additional comment.

New rules for sex offenders: I’m glad that legislators replaced pointless sex offender residency restrictions that did nothing to protect children from predators, according to prosecutors as well as advocates for exploited children.  Too bad nobody listened to State Representative Ed Fallon, who was the only legislator to vote against the 2002 law and got bashed for that vote during his primary challenge against Boswell (see also here). Speaking of campaigns, Chris Rants was one of only three state representatives to vote against the new sex offender law. Will he make this an issue in the gubernatorial race?

Manure application during winter: On principle I think it’s a bad idea for legislators to interfere with the rulemaking process at the Department of Natural Resources. However, amendments greatly improved this bill from the version that passed the Iowa Senate. In fact, the new law includes tougher restrictions on liquid manure application than the rules that the DNR would have eventually produced. It’s important to note that these restrictions only apply to manure from hogs. Cattle farmers face no new limits on what to do with solid manure during winter.

Consumer fraud protections: Iowans rightly no longer need permission from the Attorney General’s Office to sue some types of businesses for fraud. Unfortunately, this law contains an embarrassingly long list of exemptions.

Nursing home rules: It’s pure chutzpah for House Democrats to write, “Nursing homes will face higher fines for incidents resulting in death or severe injury.” More like, nursing homes will no longer be fined for the violations most likely to result in death or severe injury, but are subject to higher fines for offenses regulators never charge anyone with.

Let’s end this post on a positive note. The septic tank inspection law approved during the 2008 session also takes effect today. Over time these inspections will reduce water pollution produced by unsewered communities in Iowa. Credit goes to the legislators who approved this bill last year and to Governor Chet Culver. He wisely used his line-item veto to block State Senator Joe Seng’s attempt to sneak a one-year delay of the septic tank inspections into an appropriations bill.

This thread is for any thoughts about Iowa’s brand-new laws. Probably none of them will be as controversial as the public smoking ban that took effect on July 1, 2008.

The Iowa Democratic Party announced yesterday that Dena Gleason will be field director for the 2009/2010 election cycle. From the IDP’s press release:

“Grassroots organizing has been the foundation of recent successful Democratic campaigns. Dena learned the value of these techniques while working for now President Barack Obama. She will be a key player in implementing a field strategy to mobilize the thousands of new Democratic registrants and volunteers recruited over the last two election cycles,” said Michael Kiernan, Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. “Dena brings with her cutting edge organizational techniques that were used so successfully to elect President Obama. I am excited to welcome Dena to the team as we prepare to re-elect Governor Culver and the Democratic Ticket.”  

Gleason, originally from southern Minnesota, worked for President Obama during the primary in Iowa, Kansas, Texas and Pennsylvania. She returned to Iowa in the general election to continue her work for President Obama. Most recently Dena worked for SEIU’s Change that Works where she mobilized health care supporters across Iowa.

I would like to congratulate Gleason and wish her every success in her new job. I have a few other wishes too:

May Culver and our legislative leaders remember that Gleason can’t wave a magic wand and deliver an effective GOTV campaign.

May Iowa leaders motivate newly-registered Democrats to vote in a non-presidential year by showing them tangible results from Democratic control of the legislature and governor’s chair. Many big problems in this state haven’t been addressed during the past three legislative sessions.

May legislative leaders excite key constituencies about volunteering next year–for instance, by passing a good labor bill and moving forward instead of backward on environmental protection. I currently hear a lot of “Why should I bother?” from experienced phone bankers and door knockers.

May Gleason’s field plan prioritize legislative districts we won and lost by narrow margins in 2008, so that Democrats are not left wondering what might have been parts of the state where Democratic turnout was weak last year.

May Gleason learn from the Obama campaign’s mistakes as well as its successes, so that field organizers and volunteers do more to educate new voters about filling out the whole ballot.

Please share your own welcoming wishes in this thread.

I missed this story earlier in the week, but caught it at the Huffington Post on Friday:

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy sidestepped a court ruling this week, which had ordered it to consider whether the state should reclassify marijuana as having medical value. […]

The effort to reclassify marijuana in Iowa is led by the American Civil Liberties Union and local medical marijuana users. […]

The pharmacy board was fully informed by assistant attorney general and counsel to the board Scott Galenbeck of its job. “Judge Novak’s ruling states,” Galenbeck read to the board, “‘The board must determine whether the evidence presented by petitioner is sufficient to support a finding that marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States and does not lack accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.’ A couple sentences before that the judge stated if the board believes that evidence presented by petitioner was insufficient to support such a finding it should have stated such in its order.”

The board had previously rejected the ACLU effort. The civil liberties group appealed to the district court, setting up this week’s rematch.

Yet the Iowa board, instead of asking whether it has “accepted medical use in the United States,” asked whether Iowa should approve of it, which is not a question for the board but for the Iowa legislature.

A bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana was introduced in the Iowa Senate this year. More details about that are after the jump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Chet Culver signed more than two dozen bills on May 26, the last day he was able to take action on legislation approved during the 2009 session. Two of the bills made up the last piece of the I-JOBS program, four more are aimed at helping veterans and Iowans on active duty, and the rest cover a wide range of issues.

Some good news for water quality was buried in the long list of bills and veto messages signed on Tuesday. For the details, follow me after the jump.

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson argued last week that “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate” in 2010. The GOP has almost nowhere to go but up. Republicans currently hold 18 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate, fewer than at any previous time in this state’s history. After making gains in the last four general elections, Democrats now hold 19 of the 25 Iowa Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2010. Also, several Democratic incumbents are in their first term, having won their seats during the wave election of 2006.

To win back the upper chamber, Republicans would need a net gain of seven seats in 2010, and Robinson lists the seven districts where he sees the best chances for the GOP.

I generally agree with John Deeth’s view that only a few Senate districts are strong pickup opportunities for Republicans next year. Winning back the upper chamber will take the GOP at least two cycles, with redistricting likely to create who knows how many open or winnable seats in 2012.

After the jump I’ll examine the seven Iowa Senate districts Robinson views as worthwhile targets as well as one Republican-held district that Democrats should be able to pick up. Here is a map (pdf file) of the current Iowa Senate districts.

I was so sorry to hear today’s news out of California. While I have no doubt that a future referendum will reverse Prop 8, that process will take years and resources that could have been spent organizing in other states.

Couples left in legal limbo should be aware that the state of Iowa recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California last year. Moving halfway across the country clearly won’t be an option for everyone, but Iowa has a low cost of living and a good quality of life (more affordable housing, relatively low rates of crime and unemployment, short commutes, and decent public schools in many communities).

Of course, couples from California or anywhere else can still come to Iowa to get married.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect on April 27, hundreds of same-sex couples have been married here. More than half of Iowa’s 99 counties have issued at least one marriage license to a same-sex couple. Despite an extensive petition drive to pressure county recorders, no county recorder has refused to issue a marriage license to a couple seeking one.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling will not get anywhere. I explain why after the jump.

Last week the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to dismiss Ed and Lynn Fallon’s complaint against State Senator Merlin Bartz, who used his official  website to promote this petition last month. The petition sought to pressure Iowa’s county recorders to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Fallons contended that Bartz failed to comply with the Senate Code of Ethics, which requires legislators to “encourage respect for the law.” They also questioned whether taxpayer money was used to support the website where Bartz promoted the petition drive and urged volunteers to send copies of their signature lists to the Iowa Family Policy Center.

The Senate Ethics Committee concluded after a few minutes’ discussion that Bartz was exercising his free speech rights.

On May 18, I’M for Iowa released a statement depicting the hearing as a “sham.” Contrary to the Iowa Senate Code of Ethics, the Senate Ethics Committee failed to inform the Fallons of the date and time of the hearing in advance. The committee also did not consider the specific questions raised in the Fallons’ complaint. I’ve posted I’M for Iowa’s statement after the jump.

It seems clear that two political realities derailed any serious inquiry into the complaint against Bartz. First, Bartz is an insider, and the complainants are outsiders. (Heck, Ed Fallon was an outsider even when he was serving in the state legislature.) Earlier this year, the Iowa House Ethics Committee dismissed with prejudice a complaint Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement filed against State Representative Dolores Mertz without seriously considering many of the issues raised by the group.

I would put very low odds on any ethics complaint filed by any citizen action group leading to disciplinary action against a state representative or senator. (Please correct me if you know of any counter-examples.)

Second, I suspect that Senate Democrats have no interest in making a martyr out of Bartz. Opponents of marriage equality are desperate to show that their rights are threatened by same-sex marriages. We don’t need Bartz to be purportedly “punished for speaking his mind” (even though that wasn’t the point of the Fallons’ complaint). Look what the National Organization for Marriage has done to make Miss California USA seem like a victim of “gay marriage activists”.

Bartz hasn’t prevented any same-sex marriages from taking place, but he has secured a reputation as the most aggressive defender of “traditional marriage” in the Iowa Senate Republican caucus. He has also helped the Iowa Family Policy Center generate lots of new leads for their next membership drive.

I’ll be interested to see whether Senate Republicans seek to replace their current leader, Paul McKinley, with Bartz next year. McKinley’s actions on the marriage front have been found wanting by some Iowa conservatives and anti-gay activists.

Charlotte Eby reported at Covering Iowa Politics that the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee

voted unanimously Tuesday to dismiss an ethics complaint against a lawmaker who had encouraged county recorders to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. On his Web site, Bartz had encouraged Iowans who also are opposed to same-sex marriage to sign petitions asking county recorders to not issue same-sex licenses.

Members of the ethics committee said Bartz was simply exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech, and voted 6-0 to reject the complaint after a short discussion.

Last month I posted the full text of the petition along with the language Bartz used to promote the drive on his official Iowa Senate website.

Ed and Lynn Fallon of I’M for Iowa filed the ethics complaint against Bartz, saying he should not have encouraged elected county officials to fail to comply with an Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

The petition drive did not succeed in blocking same-sex marriages; so far no county recorders in Iowa have refused to issue marriage licenses. On the other hand, I read that some petitions containing some 17,000 signatures were delivered to county recorders the week of April 27.

If even a fraction of the people who collected signatures followed Bartz’s instructions to send copies to Chuck Hurley’s Iowa Family Policy Center, then the drive will turn out to be a list-building bonanza for that organization.

first in a series on the legislative session that ended on April 26

Last week I planned to highlight this editorial from the Des Moines Business Record, but I didn’t get around to it. Fortunately, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement jogged my memory today by linking to the same piece on the Iowa CCI Twitter feed.

The Business Record’s unsigned editorial advises readers to check “the list of exemptions in House File 712” if you want to know who has the best lobbyists in Iowa:

After a 19-year struggle by Attorney General Tom Miller, after all of the other 49 states took care of this issue, Iowa’s citizens are being granted the right to sue anyone who defrauds them. With some exceptions:

Insurance companies. Attorneys. Financial institutions. Doctors. Veterinarians. Architects. Banks. Retailers that advertise a product with advertising prepared by a supplier. Print publications and broadcast outlets, in connection with the ads they run. Telephone companies. Cable TV providers. Public utilities. Funeral directors. Real estate agents. Charity volunteers. Physical therapists. Optometrists. Anyone whose conduct is permitted by government. And more.

With exemptions like these, who needs the phone number of a lawyer?

Here’s a hint for Democratic legislative leaders: it’s not a good sign when even a business publication is mocking you for protecting businesses at the expense of consumers.

Seriously, what public interest is served by exempting so many industries and businesses from fraud lawsuits filed by individuals? I doubt “frivolous lawsuits” are a big problem in the 49 other states that allow consumers to seek legal remedy for alleged fraud.

The Business Record notes that the bill prevents class action lawsuits from being filed unless the Attorney General’s Office approves. It quotes the bill manager, House Representative Kurt Swaim, as saying the bill will help reduce the backlog of approximately 4,000 and 5,000 fraud complaints Iowans file with the Attorney General’s Office each year.

Swaim said he wished the bill didn’t have so many exemptions. But he said it still would allow consumers to act in the areas that draw the most complaints, such as car repair, home remodeling, debt collection and mortgage brokering.

Sorry, that’s not good enough in my opinion. I know business lobbyists spent a lot of time with Democrats at the statehouse this year, but next session legislators should listen to them a bit more skeptically.

Governor Chet Culver has named Charlie Krogmeier to head the Iowa Department of Human Services. He has advised Culver for many years in various jobs, most recently as the governor’s chief of staff since January. State Senator Amanda Ragan, a Democrat from Mason City, told the Des Moines Register,

“I think the agency is just like any other that has struggles because of budgetary issues and Charlie’s been very involved in watching where the money’s going to go,” said Ragan, who is vice chairwoman of the budget subcommittee that oversees DHS. “I think he’s very conscious of the needs of the population who needs the services.”

A press release with background information on Krogmeier is after the jump. The Iowa Senate will consider confirming him during the 2010 legislative session.

Senate Republicans blocked Culver’s appointment of Gene Gessow as DHS head earlier this month and rejected appeals from the governor and Senate Democrats to reconsider.

Yesterday Culver appointed to new positions two other nominees whom Senate Republicans refused to confirm.

The Iowa House adjourned for the year a little after 5 am today, and the Iowa Senate adjourned a few minutes before 6 am. I’ll write more about what happened and didn’t happen in the next day or two, but I wanted to put up this thread right away so people can share their opinions.

Several major bills passed during the final marathon days in which legislators were in the statehouse chambers nearly all night on Friday and Saturday. The most important were the 2010 budget and an infrastructure bonding proposal. Legislators also approved new restrictions on the application of manure on frozen or snow-covered ground. Another high-profile bill that made it through changes restrictions on convicted sex offenders.

Several controversial bills did not pass for lack of a 51st vote in the Iowa House, namely a tax reform plan that would have ended federal deductibility and key legislative priorities for organized labor.

Not surprisingly, last-minute Republican efforts to debate a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also failed.

More details and some preliminary analysis are after the jump.

While visiting a friend in Pella today, I found an orange piece of paper lying on her doorstep. I picked it up, expecting to see publicity for some local event like next month’s Tulip Time festival.

Instead, I found a flier comparing Iowa Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley to a “chicken,” because he “refuses to do what it takes to get a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.” McKinley asked Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal to co-sponsor a leadership bill with him so that the Senate could debate a constitutional amendment on marriage, but Gronstal refused.

Public Advocate of the US, a right-wing group based in Falls Church, Virginia, paid for this flier, according to text at the bottom. That group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio, has been using direct mail and “conservative political street theater” to advance anti-gay views for years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him show up in Iowa on Monday, when same-sex marriages become legal.

The stated goal of the flier is to generate phone calls urging McKinley to take bolder action on the Iowa Marriage Amendment, but I wonder whether the real purpose is to support different leadership for the Senate Republican caucus. McKinley was elected Senate Republican leader last November on a pledge “to rebuild this party from the ground up,” but according to the Iowa Republican blog, some conservatives,

including WHO Radio talk show host Steve Deace, don’t think that the Republicans in the Senate have done all they can since they have not made a motion to suspend the Senate rules and force the Democrats’ hand.

Republican State Representative Chris Rants tried to attach a marriage amendment to unrelated legislation in the House and forced a vote on suspending House rules. Only two House Democrats, Geri Huser and Dolores Mertz, voted with Republicans on the procedural motion. Presumably Republican candidates and interest groups will attack the other 54 House Democrats next fall for not backing up Rants.

Alternatively, the flier could be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to raise the profile (and mailing list) of Delgaudio’s group in Iowa. Does any Bleeding Heartland reader know whether Public Advocate of the US has ties to any rival of McKinley’s within the Republican Party of Iowa?

I don’t know whether this piece is being circulated in conservative neighborhoods across Iowa, or mainly in heavily Republican Pella. If you’ve seen it in your town or county, please post a comment in this thread or send an e-mail to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

The full text of the one-sided, 8 1/2 by 11-inch flier is after the jump.

UPDATE: McKinley criticized the Iowa Senate’s failure to take up the marriage amendment in his closing remarks on the final day of the 2009 session.

Ed and Lynn Fallon filed a formal ethics complaint today against Senator Merlin Bartz, according to an e-mail I received today from I’M for Iowa. Excerpt:

On a Senate Republican website, Senator Bartz posts a link to a petition appealing to county recorders to “refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on April 27th.” Senator Bartz has also spoken publicly in support of county recorders taking this action.

In their complaint, Ed and Lynn assert, “Senator Bartz’s actions appear to violate Article III, Section 32 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa and Chapter 63.10 of the Code of Iowa. Both state that duly elected officials must solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Iowa. Furthermore, the Senate Code of Ethics states that every legislator must ‘encourage respect for the law,’ and the Senator’s actions appear to violate this provision.”

The complaint further states: “We have not been able to ascertain whether taxpayer money was used in the development and maintenance of the website that Senator Bartz used to promote the petition (http://www.iowasenaterepublicans.org/Bartz/Bartz.htm), but if such is the case, this suggests a misuse of taxpayer money by an elected official to promote breaking the law. We call attention to the fact that the website in question also lists Republican Caucus staff members, who are entirely funded at taxpayer expense.”

“Let me be clear that this is not personal,” said Ed Fallon. “When we served in the Legislature, Senator Bartz and I worked on several issues together. I continue to have great respect for him and find him to be intelligent and a man of integrity. This complaint is in no way intended to cast dispersions, merely to state that, in this instance, Senator Bartz’s actions appear to constitute a breach of the Senate’s ethical standards.”

I posted about this disgraceful petition drive on Tuesday. Radio Iowa posted Bartz’s response:

“I have read the formal complaint filed by Ed Fallon and find it without merit.  According to procedures set forth by Senate Rules I will submit a formal response to the Senate Ethics Committee within the next ten days.  I fully expect the Committee to dismiss this complaint, thus continuing the tradition of free speech on the floor of the Iowa Senate.  It is important that the voices of Iowans are not silenced and a vote is held to determine what constitutes marriage.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Will the Senate Ethics Committee dismiss this complaint against a member of the club, or will they call Bartz out for encouraging county recorders to disregard the law? The Attorney General’s Office has made clear that recorders must comply with the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican caucus in the Iowa Senate is the smallest it’s ever been in this state’s history, but they let us know this week that they are not entirely irrelevant. On Tuesday all 18 Republican senators blocked Governor Chet Culver’s appointment of Shearon Elderkin to the Environmental Protection Commission. The 32 Senate Democrats supported Elderkin, but nominees need a two-thirds majority (34 votes) to be confirmed.

The following day, Senate Republicans unanimously blocked Gene Gessow’s appointment as head of the Department of Human Services. Also on April 15, two Senate Democrats joined with the whole Republican caucus to reject a second term for Carrie La Seur on the Iowa Power Fund board.

Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley released statements explaining each of these votes, but I doubt those statements tell the whole story, and I’ll tell you why after the jump.

I was expecting a showdown in the Iowa House this week over the tax reform package that Governor Chet Culver worked out with key Democratic legislators. Republican State Representative Chris Rants announced his intention to amend the tax bill so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman.

However, the tax bill never came up for a vote before legislators went home for the weekend. House Speaker Pat Murphy said on April 15 that he had only 50 votes in favor of the proposal:

According to Murphy, he had lined up 52 Democrats to vote for the bill, but two Democrats changed their minds after adjustments sought by the governor broadened the number of Iowans who would get a tax cut — and amounted to a roughly $50 million reduction in the amount of income taxes collected.

“All we need is one person to change their mind,” Murphy says. “…We’re still optimistic we’ll get it done before we adjourn.”

Murphy is counting on Governor Chet Culver, a fellow Democrat, to help find the extra vote that will get the bill passed.

“We still believe that it is a middle class tax cut,” Murphy says. “We still believe it simplifies the tax code and we are optimistic that we will pass it yet this year.”

Murphy may be optimistic, but I’m feeling a sense of deja vu. Two months ago House Democrats were stuck at 50 votes for the “prevailing wage” bill heading into a weekend. The governor and legislative leaders failed to find the 51st vote to pass that measure.

If Murphy’s assessment is correct, two Iowa House Democrats supported the original tax reform bill but not the deal worked out with the governor. Does anyone know who they are, and why they are refusing to get behind the revised tax bill? Do they disagree with changes to the bill, or are they spooked by pressure they are getting from anti-tax conservative activists? It would be a big mistake for the legislature to let this bill die now. Overhauling the tax system won’t become politically easier during an election year.

In other economic policy news, Jason Hancock reports today that prospects look good for three bills which, combined, would approve $700 billion in bonding for infrastructure projects in Iowa. Click here for more details about the bills and what they would pay for. The main difference between this package of bills and Culver’s bonding proposal is that the governor wanted $200 million from bonding to pay for roads and bridges. Legislators have specified that the bonds must be used to fund other kinds of infrastructure projects.

Many Iowa legislators wanted to pass a small gas tax increase this year and next to fund more road projects, but a veto threat from Culver killed that proposal. The federal stimulus package approved this year did include about $358 million in highway funds for Iowa (click that link for more details). I’m with legislators on this one. I’d rather see money raised through bonding used for other kinds of projects.

I am glad to see Democrats move ahead on the bonding bills despite a recent Des Moines Register poll. The poll indicated that just 24 percent supported “Governor Chet Culver’s plan to borrow money to speed up public works projects,” while 71 percent said the state should “pay for the projects as it has the money over time.” That’s a badly-worded poll question if I ever heard one. I’ll bet that people who say we should only take on what we have cash for right now will change their mind once bonding money starts funding projects in their own cities and counties.

The package of tax reform proposals that Iowa Democratic leaders worked out will come up for a vote this week. The Republican Party of Iowa and various right-wing interest groups are generating phone calls and e-mails to the capitol in opposition to this plan, and are planning several protest actions as well.

This package isn’t everything I’d like to see on tax reform, but it would be a huge improvement on the status quo. As State Senator Joe Bolkcom wrote in this op-ed for the Iowa City Press-Citizen,

There is no doubt that lightening the tax burden on Iowa’s middle-class families would be a significant change in direction for Iowa tax policy. It would reverse the trend of tax changes that mostly benefit the wealthiest Iowans. Increases in sales taxes, the reliance on gambling, and the changes in income tax policies have made Iowa’s overall tax system very regressive and unfair. Those who have less pay more. Those with more pay less to support state and local services.

Our proposed reform would reward work and provide tax cuts to middle-class Iowa workers who are bearing the brunt of the national recession.

Iowa Democratic Party chairman Michael Kiernan sent out an action alert on Monday urging Democrats to contact legislators in support of the tax changes. After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt with some details about the plan and other talking points.  

Following up on my post from Wednesday, here’s another issue to bring up when you contact your state representatives and senators. (Hat tip to noneed4thneed.)

Iowa Global Warming is calling on supporters to advocate for at least $25 million in passenger rail funding as part of the huge infrastructure bonding package that is likely to pass. $25 million is less than 5 percent of the cost of the bonding bill.

I’m a fan of calling your elected officials rather than e-mailing this late in the session, because I am not convinced they get through all the messages in their in-boxes.

Iowa Senate switchboard: 515-281-3371

Iowa House switchboard: 515-281-3221

If you prefer to e-mail, Iowa Global Warming has made it really easy for you on this page. They also provide some talking points, such as

– The future of our state economy will be determined by the decisions we make now about infrastructure

– Reliable, efficient and economical rail service connecting Iowa to Chicago and other Midwest cities will ensure that Iowa can fully benefit from the regional economy

Iowa Global Warming has a sample letter ready for you to send, although it’s better to put these things in your own words if you have time.

This thread is for discussing anything Iowa progressives should bring up with their representatives and senators before the end of session. Don’t let anyone tell you elected officials don’t pay attention to how many voters they hear from on an issue.  

Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy ruled out of order an attempt by Republicans to bring a resolution to the floor on amending Iowa’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The resolution did not pass any House committee before last month’s “funnel” deadline, so could only have reached the floor if leadership made an exception for it.

I will update this post as more news becomes available. You can read a couple of different play-by-play accounts on the Twitter feeds of journalist Charlotte Eby and Republican Representative Renee Schulte. It sounds as if leadership conferred for a while before Murphy ruled the resolution out of order. Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal, who refused to let a similar bill come to the Senate floor on Monday, was in the House chamber this morning speaking with House leaders.

Earlier today marriage equality opponents and supporters rallied at the Iowa capitol. I wasn’t there, but Charlotte Eby provided the highlights. Former State Representative Danny Carroll told the crowd that politicians who don’t listen to the word of God should be replaced. Someone doesn’t seem to understand the constitution too well. Unfortunately for Carroll and fortunately for us, the voters of Iowa House district 75 sent him packing in 2006, and voted him down by a larger margin in his rematch against Eric Palmer last year.

One Iowa also had supporters at the capitol this morning. If you were there, please post a comment or a diary about what you saw.

UPDATE with background: The bill in question, House Joint Resolution 6, proposes an amendment to the Iowa constitution stipulating that marriage is between one man and one woman (here is the text). The co-sponsors of HJR 6 are Republican Dwayne Alons (not one of the brightest lights in Iowa politics) and Democrat Dolores Mertz (the kind of Democrat who votes against good labor bills and buries bills that would reduce pollution from factory farms).

The Iowa legislature’s “funnel” date passed in early March. Under the normal rules of operation, bills that did not clear at least one House or Senate committee by that time were dead for the 2009 session.

SECOND UPDATE: One Iowa says this is not over yet and is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their representatives today.

House Switchboard: 515-281-3221

Tell them to stand firm with legislative leadership and oppose this distracting and divisive move. With all the challenges Iowa is facing, it’s time for our elected officials to get back to work for Iowa families!

The Des Moines Register explains House Speaker Murphy’s ruling:

Murphy’s ruling today stemmed from the fact that the House cannot suspend rules it has enacted jointly with the Senate. House members can only suspend their own rules.

The only way to suspend the joint rules is for someone to introduce a resolution in the Rules and Administration Committee. If it starts in the House, then there’s a vote in House committee and in the full House. If it passes, it goes to Senate committee then a vote of the full Senate.

That explains why Senate leader Gronstal was in the House chamber this morning. The bill is HJR 6.

The Des Moines Register article also makes clear that House Republicans aren’t giving up:

But Republicans hinted that they will make another run at the issue later today.

“We’ll just let the day unfold,” said House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen of Hiawatha. He later added. “The Legislature has a whole mass of rules and while you can use them sometimes to hide behind, sometimes they work to your advantage in other situations.”

I don’t pretend to know what rules he is referring to, but please tell all your friends in Iowa to contact their House representatives and ask them to respect the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More drama this afternoon, as Republican Chris Rants tried to attach an amendment banning gay marriage to a bill on health care, according to Charlotte Eby. House Speaker Murphy ruled the amendment out of order, but Rants moved to suspend rules. Eby said “some Ds” voted with Republicans and named Mertz and Geri Huser, but the motion failed. I don’t know whether Mertz and Huser were the only Democrats voting with Republicans on that bill.

If we can’t defeat Huser in the 2010 primary with all the bad votes she’s cast, I don’t know what to say. I am not giving a penny to the House Democratic leadership fund as long as any money could be spend defending incumbents like Mertz and Huser.

FINAL UPDATE: According to The Des Moines Register, the amendment defeated this afternoon

would have gutted a $1.25 billion health and human services bill, House File 811, and replaced it with a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

That amendment failed on a 54-44 vote. Mertz and Huser were the only two House Democrats who voted with Republicans. Shame on them for trying to sacrifice a health care bill in order to pass an amendment that would put discrimination in our state constitution.

If your representative is one of the 54 Democrats who stood firm with Speaker Murphy, please call or e-mail to say thank you. I know that some of the House Democrats are personally uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but they did the right thing today.

Murphy released this statement:

“The latest political stunt by House Republicans this afternoon proves this is all about politics.  It’s stunning that Republicans would choose to gut health care for our children, veterans, seniors and disabled Iowans to score political points.

Despite today’s political posturing and attempts to circumvent rules agreed to by Republicans earlier this year, my goal is to keep our focus

on helping middle class families struggling to make ends meet and balancing the state budget.

Iowans expect us to work together on the issues that unite us –good-paying jobs, affordable health care and a quality education.”

The 2009 legislative session is ending soon, and if you haven’t contacted your state representative or senator yet, quit procrastinating. I don’t think legislators diligently read every e-mail when the session gets busy, so I recommend calling them.

Iowa Senate switchboard: 515-281-3371

Iowa House Switchboard: 515-281-3221

I encourage you to tell your state representative and state senator that you support the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien and want them to respect that ruling.

Although I haven’t had time to finish writing a post here about the tax reforms being proposed this year, I support most of what’s in the package, including ending federal deductibility. Right-wing groups are urging Iowans to call their legislators about this issue, so if you support the Democratic tax reform plan, please say so. This article describes the proposed changes to Iowa’s tax code, which Democratic legislative leaders and Governor Culver have agreed on.

Please also mention to members of the Iowa House that you want them to reject SF 432 (here’s why) or remove the Liquid Manure division in SF 432.

If you are speaking with a state senator, especially a Republican senator, please also mention that you want Shearon Elderkin to be confirmed as a member of the Environmental Protection Commission. Culver appointed her to that body last year, and she has been a good vote for the environment.

I happen to know Shearon (pronounced like “Sharon”), because we used to serve on the same non-profit organization’s board of directors. She reads widely on public policy and asks tough questions. She also is a good listener and does not view issues through the prism of partisan politics. Even after serving with her for more than a year, some of our board members did not know whether she was a Republican, Democrat or independent. (For the record, she’s a moderate Republican.)

Feel free to mention any other pending bills or tips for contacting legislators in this thread.

UPDATE: Senator Jack Hatch, who chairs the Senate Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, says Gene Gessow’s confirmation as director of the Department of Human Services “is in trouble.” I posted Hatch’s speech calling for Gessow to be confirmed after the jump. If your state senator is a Republican, you may want to bring this up as well.

SECOND UPDATE: 1000 Friends of Iowa sent out an action alert regarding Elderkin’s nomination. I’ve posted that after the jump.

On March 18 the Iowa House voted 96 to 0 to pass a bill banning candidates from using campaign funds to pay themselves or immediate family members a salary. This measure closes the so-called “Ed Fallon loophole,” named because Fallon received $13,750 from his gubernatorial campaign between June and November 2006 after losing the Democratic primary.

The Iowa Senate approved Senate File 50 in February (also unanimously). Governor Chet Culver is expected to sign the bill and may have done so already, but I did not find confirmation of that on the governor’s website.

Looking at the text of Senate File 50, I noticed that it defines “immediate family member” as “the spouse or dependent child of a candidate.”

I’ve been told that at least 20 members of the Iowa House (including Democrats and Republicans) employ either their spouse or child as a clerk. Apparently it is fine for spouses and children of state legislators to draw a salary from taxpayer dollars, but it becomes a terrible ethical problem for a candidate to draw a salary from money voluntarily contributed by supporters.

I have more to say about this farcical bill after the jump.

The first “funnel” deadline passed at the end of last week, leaving most of the bills introduced in the Iowa legislature dead for this session. Summaries of notable bills that did and did not make it through the funnel can be found here and here.

Bills that have been approved by a full committee remain alive for the 2009 session, and Iowa House and Senate leaders can still introduce new measures. Also, amendments affecting various programs could be attached to appropriations bills that won’t be finalized until next month.

That means advocates should be informed and ready to help persuade legislators in the weeks to come. I’ve posted some ideas on how to accomplish that after the jump, and I’d like to hear your suggestions in the comments.

Why is Iowa Senator Dick Dearden so obsessed with legalizing dove-hunting? I know he’s introduced this bill many times before.

It doesn’t seem smart to let the state legislature get tied up in a divisive debate over mourning doves. We don’t want to give the impression that Democrats are wasting time on trivia during an economic meltdown.

Apparently Democratic statehouse leaders need to find non-spending issues to debate while they’re waiting for revised budget forecasts. Great–there are lots of things they could consider that would either boost the economy or improve the quality of life.

For instance, they could pass an ambitious renewable electricity standard to create more incentives for increasing wind and solar-power generating capacity.

Or, they could give county officials zoning authority over agricultural operations. After all, the Iowa Democratic Party’s platform does endorse the concept of “local control” over large hog lots. This measure would be popular and would address a significant issue in the lives of many Iowans.

If Senator Dearden is suffering from a shortage of winged animals to hunt, put him to work on preserving and expanding the habitat for other game birds in Iowa.  

The assistant Iowa Senate majority leader and chair of the State Government Committee has taken on a new responsibility:

February 6, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            

State Legislator Network Names Staci Appel Iowa State Director

State Senator Staci Appel of Ackworth has been selected to serve as Iowa State Director for the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL).

WiLL President Sen. Nan Grogan Orrock (GA) announced the State Director appointment in Washington, DC, saying “Since her election to the Iowa Senate in 2006, Staci Appel has provided exemplary leadership on a number of issues important to her constituents and to Iowa.  Senator Appel has a legislative record that demonstrates a commitment to issues affecting children and senior citizens and the disadvantaged, as well as state budget and infrastructure needs.”

Orrock said that as a State Director of WiLL, Appel will work with the national non-partisan network of women legislators to influence federal legislation and budgetary policy.  Appel will work with women from all fifty states to amplify women’s voices, promote women’s leadership, and support a national agenda that promotes true homeland security and prosperity.

“With a membership base of one out of every three women legislators, WiLL is a strong voice for national policy to address family violence, to promote the health and well-being of women, children and families, to protect our environment, and to oppose bloated military spending that builds too many weapons and not enough schools,” stated Senator Orrock.

Staci Appel of Ackworth is a member of the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL).  For more information about WiLL, contact Staci Appel (515) 961-6982 or the WiLL office at 202-544-5055.

WiLL | WAND

Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL), a unique program of WAND, is a non-partisan network of women state legislators working to influence federal policy and budget priorities.

Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) empowers women to act politically to reduce violence and militarism, and redirect excessive military resources toward unmet human and environmental needs.

Appel has already made a mark during her first term in the Iowa Senate. She helped get the Farm to School program funded during the 2007 legislative session. Last year she secured more funding for after-school programs (although those funds unfortunately got “swept” for flood relief in the summer). She also managed the smoking ban bill in the Iowa Senate and chaired the conference committee that resolved the differences between the House and Senate versions of that legislation.

I don’t know how she finds enough hours in the day, because she is also a mother of six children at home. I will look forward to learning more about her work with WiLL.

Mary Lundby, a former leader of Iowa Senate Republicans and the first woman elected Speaker Pro-Tem in the Iowa House, passed away on Saturday after a long fight with cervical cancer.

Her funeral will be on January 21 at 1:00 p.m. at St. Joseph Parish in Marion.

Iowa politicians from both parties have paid tribute to Lundby. You can read their comments in Lynda Waddington’s piece for Iowa Independent, this article from the Cedar Rapids Gazette, and this Des Moines Register article.

I only spoke to Senator Lundby once or twice. My friends who knew her well always spoke so highly of her. I appreciated her support for responsible land use in Iowa (land use issues often cut across party lines when they come up in the Iowa legislature). Lundby was on the advisory council of 1000 Friends of Iowa, a group I’m involved with.

Condolences go out to her loved ones. She was a strong and caring person.

Cancer is a monstrous disease. Women should educate themselves about ways to prevent cervical cancer as well as common symptoms of cervical cancer.

UPDATE: Lynda Waddington shares some memories and links to other reflections at Essential Estrogen.

SECOND UPDATE: 24-hour Dorman reports that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has “cancelled all committee and floor action” scheduled for Wednesday so that members of the Iowa Senate and the Senate staff may attend Mary Lundby’s memorial service in Marion.

The Iowa Legislature opened its 2009 session today, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal let the members of the upper chamber know that he has “never seen such a tough situation” with the state budget and economy in his 26 years at the statehouse.

In his opening address the the Iowa Senate, Gronstal listed some of the biggest challenges facing legislators, in particular rebuilding communities damages by last year’s natural disasters and leading Iowa “through these tough times without sabotaging the commitments we’ve made on economic growth, health care and education.”

He warned that a lot of legislators won’t get what they want this year:

Our resources are limited.  We will say “no” to many good ideas.  We are going to disappoint some people and frustrate others.

If your idea of being an elected official involves being loved by everyone, the next few months will be pretty rough.

Gronstal also noted that bipartisan majorities approved many key policies in Iowa during the past few years, and called for finding “bipartisan solutions” to this year’s challenges.

In his opening address to the chamber, Senate President Jack Kibbie echoed Gronstal’s warning that leaders will be saying “no” to a lot of requests from legislators.

He also advocated some policies that are anything but bipartisan: a gas tax hike and the expansion of workers’ bargaining rights.

Kibbie said increasing the gas tax would create jobs and boost economic development:

First, we can no longer put off the challenges to our transportation infrastructure. It is vital that we begin to clear the backlog of projects that play a  significant role in future economic development. In my district my constituents, Republicans and Democrats, all tell me that we need to get to work and if the only impediment to that progress is money they are willing to pay a few more cents at the pump. I support efforts that result in a gas tax increase. Success in that endeavor will mean better roads, jobs, and an economic boost to Iowa’s families and communities.

I’ve supported a gas tax increase since John Anderson proposed it during his 1980 presidential campaign, but I don’t expect that measure to get through the legislature without a bruising battle.

Here’s a piece listing the many potential benefits of a federal gas tax increase. Kibbie is talking about a smaller increase in the state gas tax, but many of the same benefits would apply.

Kibbie also said Iowa workers need good wages, and therefore “we should not fear passing Legislation that help[s] workers bargain for a better future.”

Kibbie could be referring to the “fair share” bill that Democrats didn’t have to votes to get through the Iowa House in 2007, or to the collective bargaining bill that Governor Chet Culver vetoed last spring. Either way, Republicans and corporate interest groups will put up a fight.

Getting labor legislation through the Iowa House, where Democrats have a 56-44 majority, is likely to be more difficult than getting it through the Iowa Senate, where Democrats have a 32-18 majority.

The complete texts of the opening statements by Gronstal and Kibbie (as prepared) are after the jump.

Swing State Project finally got around to posting the results from its election prediction contest, which reminded me that I need to do the same. For weeks I’d been waiting for the results of recounts and runoffs in Iowa and national races. Although the results of the Minnesota Senate race may still be contested in court, it appears very likely that Al Franken will be the new junior senator from that state.

Swing State Project disqualified all entries that did not include answers to every question, but I wasn’t so strict here. You can view everyone’s predictions in this thread.

1. What percentage of the national popular vote with Barack Obama and John McCain receive?

Populista hit that one almost exactly with a prediction of Obama 52.9, McCain 46.0. Very close behind was jdunph1 with a prediction of Obama 53.6 percent, McCain – 45.9 percent.

2. How many electoral votes will Obama and McCain win?

American007 made the best guess, with 367 electoral votes for Obama and 171 for McCain. In second place was oregoniowan, who guessed that Obama would win 356 electoral votes. (Obama actually won 365.)

3. What percentage of the vote will Obama and McCain win in Iowa?

American007 nailed it with a prediction of Obama 54, McCain 45. jackwilliamr and oregoniowan tied for second place; both predicted Obama 54, McCain 44.

4. What percentage of the vote will Bruce Braley and Dave Hartsuch receive in the 1st district?

jackwilliamr predicted Braley 62, Hartsuch 37, which was closest to the final 64-36 result. I placed second by predicting Braley 62, Hartsuch 38.

5. What percentage of the vote will Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks receive in the 2nd district?

My prediction of Loebsack 57, Miller-Meeks 40 was closest to the final 57-39 result. secondtonone had the next-best prediction of Loebsack 55, Miller-Meeks 44.

6. What percentage of the vote will Leonard Boswell and Kim Schmett receive in the 3rd district?

As a group, we did well on this question, with almost everyone getting pretty close to Boswell’s vote share (most guesses put him in the 54 to 58 percent range).

American007’s guess of Boswell 56, Schmett 43 was closest to the final 56-42 result. Populista was also close with Boswell 57 Schmett 43.

7. What percentage of the vote will Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald receive in the 4th district?

As a group, we did badly on this question, with no one predicting that Latham would crack 60 percent.

Bill Spencer predicted Latham 58, Greenwald 42, which was closest to the final 61-39 margin. Populista and American007 both thought Latham would win 53 percent of the vote, which was the next-closest guess.

8. What percentage of the vote will Steve King and Rob Hubler receive in the 5th district?

Again, no one here predicted King would crack 60 percent. Bill Spencer had the best guess of King 58, Hubler 42 (the final result was 60-37). American007 had the next-closest prediction of King 56, Hubler 43.

9. How many seats will the Democrats and Republicans have in the Iowa House after the election (currently 53-47 Dem)?

American007 and I were right on the nose, predicting a 56-44 Democratic majority in the Iowa House. There was a tie for second place: lorih predicted a 57-43 advantage for Democrats, while Populista predicted a 55-45 edge.

10. How many seats will the Democrats and Republicans have in the Iowa Senate after the election (currently 30-20 Dem)?

There was a four-way tie for first place, with secondtonone, Populista, oregoniowan and American007 all correctly predicting that there would be 32 Democrats and 18 Republicans in the new Iowa Senate. Bill Spencer and I both guessed that Democrats would end up with a 33-17 advantage in the upper chamber.

11. Which Congressional race in Iowa will be the closest (in terms of percentage of vote difference between winner and loser)?

Although most of us guessed that Boswell would finish in the mid-50s, no one correctly predicted that the Boswell-Schmett contest would be the closest Congressional race in Iowa. Most of us guessed Greenwald-Latham, two people predicted Loebsack v. Miller-Meeks, and two people predicted King v. Hubler.

12. Which Iowa House or Senate race will be the closest (in terms of percentage of vote difference between winner and loser)?

Iowa had a lot of close statehouse races this year. The two decided by the narrowest margin were Jeff Danielson’s defeat of Walt Rogers in Senate district 10 and Renee Schulte’s defeat of Art Staed in House district 37 (both decided by less than 0.1 percent of the vote). No one guessed either of those races as the answer to this question.

I’m giving the win on this one to American007, who guessed Larry Marek and Jarad Klein’s race in House district 89. That was among the close races; I think it was decided by the seventh-smallest margin, just over 1 percent.

13. Nationally, which U.S. Senate race will be decided by the narrowest margin (in terms of percentage of the vote difference, not raw votes)?

There was a five-way tie on this question, with audiored, lorih, American007, Populista and oregoniowan all correctly predicting that the Minnesota Senate race would be the closest. Franken looks like he will win by less than 0.01 percent of the vote, depending on how many improperly rejected absentee ballots are counted.

14. In the presidential race, which state will be decided by the narrowest margin (again, in terms of percentage of the vote)?

We had a three-way tie for first here, with lorih, Populista and jackwilliamr all predicting that Missouri would be the closest state in the presidential race. McCain won there by a little over 0.1 percent of the vote.

The next-closest state was North Carolina, which was my guess on this question.

Thanks to everyone who entered the contest. Taking all the results into account, it’s clear that American007 is this year’s champion of election predictions at Bleeding Heartland.

I can’t promise a chocolate babka, which the Swing State Project team is sending to the winner of their contest, but I would be happy to treat American007 to lunch or coffee anywhere in the Des Moines area at a mutually convenient time.

I saw at Iowa Independent that the Asian-American newspaper AsianWeek named Swati Dandekar the Asian Pacific American person of the year for 2008:

[I]t was hard to decide who should be the APA Person of the Year in 2008. When looking at the future of Asian Pacific America, however, and thinking about the community’s growth out of the comfort of urban enclaves and into suburban and even rural America, the answer became clear: Swati Dandekar.

Dandekar, a Democrat born and educated in India, has been living in Iowa for over thirty years and has served three terms as a member in the Iowa House of Representatives. In 2008, she threw her hat in the ring to run for an Iowa state Senate seat that had voted Republican for almost 20 years. Reaching out to many rural Iowans with a platform based on education, quality health care, renewable energy and economic growth, she won 54.3 percent of the vote and is seen as a rising star of Iowa politics.

Swati Dandekar could have played it safe and stayed in her House seat because most incumbents are re-elected. Instead, she chose to reach for a higher office that required her to knock on doors in areas where she had not represented the people and where knowledge of Asian Indian Americans may not have been high. As a result of her successful gamble, however, she now has added clout as she battles for educational opportunity and other key concerns. And APAs now have a state Senate-level standard-bearer in a state not know for its high percentage of APAs.

I echo the newspaper’s statement that Dandekar took a big risk in running for Senate district 18. Even though she has attracted a lot of cross-over Republican voters while representing Iowa House district 36, seeking the Senate seat long held by Mary Lundby (who retired) was no sure thing.

Congratulations to Dandekar for picking up a Senate seat for Iowa Democrats while making Asian Pacific Americans across the country proud.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, in consultation with Senate President Jack Kibbie, has released the committee assignments for the 32 Democrats who will serve in the upper chamber during the next two years. I got the list from the Iowa Senate Democrats website, and I’ve posted it after the jump.

The list identifies Democratic senators by surname only. Click here for a chart showing each senator’s full name, home town, district number and Senate office e-mail address.

The Senate Democrats created two new committees: the Environment and Energy Independence Committee and the Rebuild Iowa Committee.  

I haven’t had time to look carefully at the list for changes from last session, but please share any of your insights in the comments.

Chase Martyn analyzed the Iowa House Democrat committee assignments here. Among other things, he noticed,

Almost all vulnerable Democratic incumbents have been kept off the Ways and Means committee.  In a year of budget shortfalls, Ways and Means will likely have to send some tax-increasing bills to the floor.  Members of the committee who vote to send those bills to the floor will be said to have voted for tax increases an absurd number of times because negative direct mail does not typically distinguish between committee votes and floor votes.

Senator Tom Harkin has announced who made the second cut in his “Building Blue” contest:

Dear [desmoinesdem]:

After two rounds of voting and several thousands of votes cast, I am proud to announce the top 5 House and top 5 Senate candidates that you voted for to receive $2,000 and advance to the final round.

For the Iowa State House you voted for:  Elesha Gayman D-84, Gretchen Lawyer D-36, Eric Palmer D-75, Mark Smith D-43, and Andrew Wenthe D-18.

For the Iowa State Senate you voted for: Jeff Danielson D-10, Swati Dandekar D-18, Mike Gronstal D-50, Tom Rielly D-38, and Sharon Savage D-40.

Congratulations!

Thanks to your strong support for progressive values, each of these outstanding candidates for the Iowa general assembly will receive a $2,000 contribution and are now eligible to win the grand prize of another $5,000 contribution and a fundraising email.

Please click here to make your voice heard by voting for one of these fine progressive candidates in our final round.

Voting for the final round will be open from now through June 17, so please remember to tell your friends and family and help build Iowa blue by voting for your favorite candidate today.

Thank you for supporting all of the candidates that have participated in our Building Blue contest so far and congratulations to our first money winners!

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Harkin

People, please don’t vote for Mike Gronstal. He does not need more cash for his campaign. In fact, I think it would be a nice gesture for him to donate the $2,000 he receives from Harkin to Democrats facing tough Senate races.

A couple of months ago John Deeth wrote this great feature on the battleground races for Iowa House and Senate.

Of the five Senate candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, only Dandekar and Rielly are also on Deeth’s list of candidates facing close contests. I recommend voting for one of them in the final round.

Of the five House candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, Gayman, Lawyer and Palmer are all running in battleground districts, according to Deeth. I would choose one of them in the final round.

To vote, go to http://www.tomharkin.com. You can pick one House candidate and one Senate candidate.

Today is the last day to select one Iowa House candidate and one Iowa Senate candidate you’d like to see Harkin give money to this year:

http://www.tomharkin.com/

Bleeding Heartland users advocated for various candidates in this thread:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

As you may recall, Iowa Senator Matt McCoy of Des Moines was acquitted in December on federal charges of attempted extortion. The case against McCoy was weak and raised questions about whether partisan politics influenced his indictment.

One detail that emerged from the trial was that in December 2005, Des Moines businessman John Ruan III (a Republican) wrote a $2,500 check to McCoy with the words “Mike Blouen” in the memo line. A few days later, McCoy contributed $2,500 to the gubernatorial campaign of fellow Democrat Mike Blouin.

That disclosure led to an ethics investigation, which has now been settled, according to the Des Moines Register:

A prominent Des Moines businessman and an Iowa state senator have each agreed to pay $1,250 to settle allegations that one used the other to pass an illegal campaign contribution to a former candidate for governor.

John Ruan III and state Sen. Matt McCoy will pay the fines as part of a deal to end a state ethics investigation into a series of checks between the men and the failed candidate, Democrat Mike Blouin.

The settlement, approved by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board late Monday, includes assertions that neither Ruan nor McCoy “intended to violate or willfully violated” campaign law with a December 2005 check from McCoy to Blouin.

Charles Smithson of the ethics board called the settlement “a fair resolution of the matter for all involved” and said Blouin would not have to return the disputed $2,500 contribution because “there was no evidence that he knew anything about the underlying situation.”

As you recall, a federal jury recently acquitted Matt McCoy after deliberating for less than two hours–an embarrassing outcome for the prosecution.

Marc Hansen, who for my money is the best columnist at the Des Moines Register, wrote a good column about speculation that politics influenced McCoy’s prosecution. Key passage:

Most Democrats you talk to around here say politics was behind the prosecution of state Sen. Matt McCoy.

They have their reasons. Some even sound legitimate, especially in light of a recent University of Minnesota study that brings hard numbers to the discussion.

For every elected Republican the Justice Department has investigated during the George W. Bush years, seven elected Democrats have been investigated, the research says.

Can that be right? Are there really that many more bad-apple Democrats?

The jury took about an hour and a half last week to decide that McCoy wasn’t guilty of attempted extortion. And that includes lunch.

Rekha Basu wrote a good column last week: Question lingers: Why was McCoy prosecuted? Click the link–it’s worth your time to read the whole thing. This passage toward the end was news to me:

McCoy’s defense tried to get access to memos between the FBI, Justice Department and local U.S. attorney’s office, but was turned down in U.S. District Court. His lawyers wanted to see whether anything indicated a political motivation. There’s nothing else they can do, says attorney F. Montgomery Brown. “Prosecutors have near absolute immunity. There’s just no remedy there.”

There is one, but it would have to come from a member of Congress. Sens. Tom Harkin or Chuck Grassley can and should request access to the correspondence. Voters and taxpayers deserve to know whether this was just a poorly conceived and badly bungled effort by the government – or whether something else was going on.

Grassley would never help on this matter, but I wonder if Harkin would consider it.

Also, I wonder if anyone on the Talking Points Memo muckraking staff has looked into this prosecution.

Just a quick-hit diary to note that a federal jury didn’t take long to acquit Senator Matt McCoy of Des Moines on charges of attempted extortion:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

I haven’t followed the case closely, but it always seemed fishy to me, given what we know about how Bush’s Department of Justice has encouraged U.S. attorneys to prosecute Democrats.