National Organization for Money graphic created by Rights Equal Rights and used with permission.

Donald Trump targeted Bob Vander Plaats on Twitter this week. He speculated that Ted Cruz, who landed Vander Plaats’ personal endorsement last month, may not know about past “dealings” by one of Iowa’s leading social conservatives. The billionaire called Vander Plaats a “bad guy” and a “phony,” claiming the FAMiLY Leader‘s front man had asked to stay in Trump hotels for free and tried to secure a $100,000 payment for himself after “begging” Trump to do an Iowa event. Jennifer Jacobs confirmed that Trump received a $100,000 fee for speaking to a real estate conference in West Des Moines last year, but Vander Plaats told the Des Moines Register “he was paid nothing” for introducing Trump to the head of the company that organized the event, and “no donation was made to the Family Leader.”

The spat reminded me of big news from the final two weeks of the 2012 Iowa caucus campaign, when Rick Santorum confirmed that Vander Plaats had asked for money to promote his endorsement.

The National Organization for Marriage has started spending money supporting Republican candidate Cindy Golding in the Iowa Senate district 18 special election. After the jump I’ve posted the first direct-mail piece from the group, which puts a questionable spin on Golding’s comments about marriage.

For now, NOM has pledged to support Golding “with a series of mailers and other activities” before November 8. Bob Vander Plaats’ FAMiLY Leader organization will also be involved with the independent expenditures. NOM spent heavily on the 2009 Iowa House district 90 special election, paying for television and radio commercials as well as direct mail. Those efforts didn’t stop Democrat Curt Hanson from winning by a narrow margin.

Jefferson County supervisor Stephen Burgmeier filed yesterday to be the Republican candidate in Iowa House district 90, setting up a rematch with Democrat Curt Hanson. The district covers all of Van Buren County, most of Jefferson County (including Fairfield) and a small portion of Wapello County (map here).

Last summer Hanson narrowly defeated Burgmeier in a special election, even though Iowa-based conservative interest groups went all-in for Burgmeier and the National Organization for Marriage spent nearly $90,000 on advertising to support him.

Notably, Hanson built up a strong advantage in early voting and beat Burgmeier in Jefferson County by about 600 votes. In addition, two social conservatives ran as third-party candidates, and the 282 combined votes they received was greater than Hanson’s 127-vote margin over Burgmeier. The spoiler candidates were unhappy that Burgmeier didn’t talk much about abortion and gay marriage during the campaign.

Iowa Republicans tried to put a good face on the special election result, but the outcome was disappointing for them on several levels.

House district 90 is likely to be one of the most competitive races in the state. If you living within striking distance of the area, please consider volunteering for Hanson’s campaign this summer and fall. That said, I like Hanson’s chances of holding the seat this November. Burgmeier couldn’t win a low-turnout special election during a severe recession when the GOP base was all fired up about the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage. Despite having been elected three times as a supervisor, Burgmeier lost his own county by a sizable margin.

This week Hanson, a retired driving instructor, co-chaired a conference committee to resolve differences between the Iowa House and Senate bills to restrict texting while driving.

Following up on my review of news from the first half of last year, I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from July through December 2009 after the jump.

Hot topics on this blog during the second half of the year included the governor’s race, the special election in Iowa House district 90, candidates announcing plans to run for the state legislature next year, the growing number of Republicans ready to challenge Representative Leonard Boswell, state budget constraints, and a scandal involving the tax credit for film-making.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama’s administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn’t have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can’t say I wasn’t warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year’s political events are welcome in this thread.

This article by Jason Clayworth in Thursday’s Des Moines Register was good for a few laughs:

A group opposed to same-sex marriages failed to secure victory for Republicans in Iowa this week, but the massive injection of out-of-state money on the issue foreshadows what’s to come in next year’s elections, political scholars said Wednesday.

Despite the loss, the National Organization for Marriage succeeded in making gay marriage an issue, the head of the group said Wednesday. He vowed that its “Reclaim Iowa Project” will remain active in the 2010 state elections.

I’m sure “making gay marriage an issue” was just the kind of success the NOM’s generous donors (whoever they are) were looking for. Why, Iowans in House district 90 might never have realized same-sex couples could marry if not for the NOM’s major ad campaign.

Back to that Register article:

Jeff Boeyink, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, said many no-party voters Tuesday supported [Stephen] Burgmeier. That was a victory itself, he said.

Voters want the opportunity to vote on the gay marriage issue, he said.

“We moved the needle a lot,” Boeyink said. “We didn’t get the victory, but we take away some real positives out of this.”

Sure, Mr. Boeyink, you “moved the needle a lot.” Your candidate, elected three times as a Jefferson County supervisor, lost his own county by more than 600 votes.

The marriage group did not lose the race for Burgmeier, said Chuck Hurley, a former Republican legislator and now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group against gay marriage. He said the issue will be a major topic in the 2010 elections.

“Marriage won the day,” Hurley said of the election. “I think it was a huge issue in the campaign.”

Yes, Republicans tried to make marriage a huge issue in the campaign while Curt Hanson talked about jobs, economic development and renewable energy. The National Organization for Marriage’s television ad used the same kind of rhetoric as the Iowa Family Policy Center’s “Let Us Vote” campaign: instead of advocating discrimination against same-sex couples, the ads supported Burgmeier as someone who would “let voters have a say.” Well, voters in House district 90 had their say.

I don’t want to get too cocky. Tuesday’s election could have gone the other way if not for the outstanding GOTV effort by organizers supporting Hanson. But the fact is, a special election a few months after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling went into effect is exactly the kind of race likely to be disproportionately influenced by same-sex marriage. In Vermont and Massachusetts, the electoral backlash against supporters of marriage equality was short-lived. If the Iowa Family Policy Center (which designated a staffer to work on Burgmeier’s campaign) and nearly $90,000 worth of NOM tv ads couldn’t leverage this issue into a victory on Tuesday, I don’t think Republicans will get far running against gay marriage 14 months from now.

For a more honest Republican assessment of Tuesday’s special election results, read this post by Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican.

Today’s the big day in Iowa House district 90. Latest news from the race:

Beth Dalbey wrote a good feature on the campaign for Iowa Independent. I didn’t realize that Republican candidate Stephen Burgmeier ran for Jefferson County supervisor as a Democrat and later as an independent before switching to the Republican Party.

One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund filed a formal ethics complaint against the National Organization for Marriage with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

The NOM claims to be in compliance with Iowa law.

Post any thoughts or election predictions in this thread. I am having trouble making a prediction. This race “should” go to Burgmeier because low-turnout special elections favor the opposition party, and because conservative interest groups have advertised much more heavily in the district. On the other hand, I hear field organizers supporting Curt Hanson on the ground have been doing a tremendous job. I will update this post with my final prediction this afternoon.

I agree with Kathie Obradovich, who argued last week:

This is primarily a local race. So what will the outcome say about the larger political landscape? Republicans have the most to gain and the least to lose. If Burgmeier fails, they can point to the Democratic advantage in the district. If he wins, it will be another boost for GOP voters. It’ll look like a rejection of Culver and the Democrats’ policies.

Still, another State Fair will have come and gone before the general election. Both parties will have a chance to learn from any mistakes in this race, and voters will have long forgotten them. Victory will be as sweet as cotton candy and probably just as long-lasting.

The state of the economy next fall will be much more important for the 2010 Iowa legislative races than whatever happens in House district 90 today.

UPDATE: Trying to be optimistic, but unfortunately I think Burgmeier will win this narrowly (53-47).

Democrats and Republicans were busy in Iowa House district 90 over the weekend, making calls and knocking on doors to GOTV for tomorrow’s special election. Democrats had an early lead in terms of absentee ballots returned, and according to the field organizer for the Fairness Fund, efforts to collect outstanding absentee ballots continued.  We won several Iowa House seats in 2008 through big leads in early voting. A strong absentee ballot showing will be crucial for Curt Hanson, because the national political environment for Democrats is less favorable now than it was last November, conservative interest groups are heavily invested in this race, and same-sex marriage has galvanized the Republican base in Iowa.

Speaking of gay marriage, the National Organization for Marriage has spent nearly $90,000 trying to get Republican Stephen Burgmeier elected. It’s an astronomical sum to spend on advertising in a rural Iowa House district. The group will have to do things differently if they want to get involved in our statehouse races next year:

An out-of-state anti-gay marriage group will likely need to form its own Political Action Committee and disclose its donors if it continues its Iowa activities, a state official warned today. […]

NOM will likely need to disclose future donors if it continues its Iowa activities, Charlie Smithson, the head of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, warned NOM in a letter today.

“I’m not as much concerned with this particular race as I am that Iowa is not going to become a dumping ground for undisclosed campaign contributions,” Smithson said in an interview.  “Anyone can play the game here, but they are going to play within the rules.”

The One Iowa blog has more details and a link to Smithson’s letter. The bottom line is that the National Organization for Marriage will need to form a PAC that discloses donors in order to spend more than $750 on advocacy activities in Iowa. Click here to sign One Iowa’s petition calling on NOM to disclose their funding sources.

If you live in or near House district 90, let us know what you’ve seen in terms of advertising, yard signs, or door hangers for either candidate. I’m also interested to know whether either party has been aggressively contacting the large number of Green and Libertarian voters in the Fairfield area. The Greens would be more inclined to support Democrat Curt Hanson, while I could see Libertarians going either way in this race.  

Several Bleeding Heartland readers living in different Iowa counties have received robocalls in the past few days featuring Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King. Like the calls King recorded in early April, these calls are paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

I have not heard the call, but from what others have told me, it sounds like this fake survey is designed to raise money, identify and mobilize supporters. (In contrast, a “push-poll” usually seeks to spread information that would change people’s minds about an issue or candidate.) The details are after the jump.

One Iowa is airing this television commercial in five markets around Iowa:

The full transcript of the ad is after the jump. I like the way the commercial places marriage equality and the Supreme Court’s decision within the long tradition of diverse people finding freedom in Iowa under our state’s Constitution. (Democratic legislative leaders cited Iowa’s tradition of leadership in civil rights in their statement welcoming the Varnum v Brien decision. The historical landmarks they cited prompted Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor to start building a case for marriage equality in Iowa in 2002.)

One Iowa’s commercial also reminds viewers that the Supreme Court unanimously struck down discrimination and that the ruling “will not change religious marriage or how each religion defines that.”

Visually, the ad mostly contains photos of Iowa landscapes, buildings and families (gay and straight), with a few words shown against a blank screen for emphasis. When the voice-over says, “some things remain the same,” the word “hope” appears on the screen. When the voice-over says the Supreme Court “justices were not divided,” the word “courage” appears on the screen. When the voice-over admonishes “those outsiders who want to put discrimination into our constitution,” the word “respect” appears on the screen.

According to Iowa Politics, One Iowa is spending $75,000 to run this commercial for a week “in the Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Quad Cities and Sioux City media markets; on cable stations like CNN, MSNBC, HLN, Lifetime, and HGTV; and on Des Moines broadcast stations as well.”

Donating to One Iowa will help keep this ad on the air. It’s a welcome contrast to the absurd scare-mongering of the National Organization for Marriage’s television ad attacking gay marriage. That commercial has already been debunked by Human Rights Campaign and brutally parodied on the Colbert Report.

Congressman Steve King is still “royally ticked” about the “unanimous decision on the part of seven unelected Iowa judges who decided to take the law into their own hands and usurp the legitimate authority of the Iowa Legislature […].” He doesn’t seem real clear on the concept of judicial review, whereby courts can strike down laws that violate citizens’ constitutional rights.

Then again, maybe King does understand that legislators can’t pass unconstitutional laws. As David Waldman pointed out, last month King complained that a bill to restrict bonus payments to executives from bailed-out financial institutions was “a dangerous and unconstitutional disruption of America’s free-market system.”

In any event, King is bringing his crusade against marriage equality to a telephone near you. Several Bleeding Heartland readers in different parts of the state have told me that they received the robocall corncam diaried here. Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, the call features King asking if you are a registered voter in Iowa. If you say yes, King asks if you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. If you say no, King thanks you and says good-bye.

We need someone to say yes, take detailed notes about the rest of this robocall, and post a diary here about it. Obviously it’s a voter ID call for a group that will be campaigning to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, but what talking points are they using, and what information are they collecting from sympathetic respondents?

Some people have wondered whether King recorded this call in order to raise his profile for a future statewide campaign. Last week King told the Omaha World-Herald that he would be more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Chet Culver did not work hard to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien. Although I’d love for King to leave Congress, I agree with Iowa Senate Democratic leader Mike Gronstal, who says “Steve King’s too chicken to run for governor because he knows he’d get his butt beat.”

King responded by accusing Gronstal of being “afraid to allow a vote on marriage,” which made me laugh. If Gronstal were afraid of backlash on this issue, he would be making cautious statements that grudgingly accept the Supreme Court ruling while emphasizing his own belief in “traditional marriage.” Instead, Gronstal has made clear that he welcomes marriage equality and will not “insert discrimination into our state constitution.”

The Steve Kings of the world are scared because they know Iowans and Americans increasingly support legal recognition of committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Speaking of campaigns, Politico reported on April 3 that the Federal Election Commission has questioned why King’s campaign committee paid the Congressman’s son Jeff King $156,000 during the past five years. An attorney for the campaign committee responded that Jeff King is the sole full-time employee of the campaign, and that he was paid a “fair market value” salary for “bona fide campaign-related services.”

King isn’t the most energetic campaigner, so I find it surprising that he employs a full-time year-round campaign staffer, but to me this is a non-issue. Many politicians employ close relatives on their campaigns. If King’s contributors don’t mind his paying his son $30,000 a year, then who am I to argue?

What bothers me are the elected officials who hire close relatives to do taxpayer-funded work–especially when those officials pretend to care about allegedly unethical campaign payments.