Between now and the end of the 2010 legislative session, self-styled “defenders of marriage” will urge Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying. Bryan English, director of public relations and outreach for the Iowa Family Policy Center, wrote a guest post for The Iowa Republican blog about his recent efforts to convince Democratic State Senator Dennis Black (district 21).
English and I disagree on most political issues, including the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien, but in this piece he shines a light on talking points Democrats should avoid when confronted by opponents of marriage equality.
This bad news comes to you courtesy of the Mason City Globe-Gazette: State Representative Mark Kuhn will retire from the Iowa House next year to seek a seat on the Floyd County Board of Supervisors. He served on that board for six years before being elected to represent House district 14 in 1998. He told the Globe-Gazette that he will serve out his current term but wants to be closer to his family.
He said some of the highlights of his legislative career include:
– In his first term, securing an $800,000 interest-free loan for Floyd County and Charles City for Iowa’s first shared (with the DOT) transportation maintenance facility, located in Charles City.
– Authoring a bill banning the gasoline additive MTBE, believed to be a cancer-causing agent.
– Increasing markets for ethanol.
– Working to make the State Capitol building safer for persons with disabilities.
– Securing a $500,000 I-JOBS grant to repair the flood-damaged Charles City Fire Station and for infrastructure projects in Rudd, Rockford, Marble Rock and Nora Springs.
District 14 (map in pdf file) contains all of Floyd and Mitchell Counties, plus part of Cerro Gordo County. Bleeding Heartland readers familiar with north-central Iowa, which Democrats should run to replace Kuhn? According to the Globe-Gazette, one Republican candidate has already declared in this district: Josh Byrnes, the agricultural and industrial technology division chairman at North Iowa Area Community College. In the 2008 election, Kuhn won just under 71 percent of the vote against Jeff Mosiman.
A district convention made up of Linn County Central Committee members who live in Iowa House district 33 will select the Democratic candidate for this special election within the next few weeks. Bleeding Heartland readers familiar with Linn County politics, who should replace Taylor?
Norm Sterzenbach, Sr., a military veteran who has been a steady presence in county politics for years and currently serves as the county Democrats’ second vice chairman, is expected to make a bid for the seat. Kirsten Running-Marquard, 32, who works in U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack’s office and is the daughter of former state Rep. Rich Running, has also been contacting local Democrats to drum up support.
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.)
“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.
We won’t know the full story on Iowa’s film tax credit for weeks, as investigators look into lax oversight and other problems at the Iowa Department of Economic Development. It may be months before we learn whether Iowa taxpayers will end up paying around $110 million or as much as $300 million in exchange for some temporary jobs in the film industry.
One common theme in this week’s legislative dodge-fest is that the Department of Economic Development pushed through rules governing the program on an “emergency” fast track in July 2007. Lawmakers insist that left them no chance to review the rules before they took effect, including allowing credits for the purchase of aircraft, vehicles, furnishings, hairstyling and makeup.
There’s one small problem with that argument: Much of what was in those rules was also spelled out in the bill they approved by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. The cars, the planes, the hair. All there.
You also have to wonder why lawmakers approved a tax credit program with the authority to hand out tens of millions of dollars but provided only enough money for a one-person office to administer it. A recipe for trouble.
And last spring, when legislators prudently decided to cap dollars flowing from the program, why did they delay screwing on that cap until July 1? In the meantime, a flood of credit applications exploded the program’s potential cost.
The film tax credit received little attention when it was created, probably because it was uncontroversial (approved 95-1 in the Iowa House and 48-2 in the Iowa Senate). Journalists covering the statehouse and political junkies like me tend to notice action and partisan warfare.
Sometimes consensus politics ends up constraining the rights of individuals. The 1998 Defense of Marriage Act sailed through the Iowa legislature with only Fallon voting no, but the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously held this year that “the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
During the 2009 session, the little-noticed House File 233 unanimously passed both the House and Senate. It changed the rules so that citizens have only ten days (as opposed to the 12 months previously allowed) to file a lawsuit challenging a school board’s decision on disposition of property. As a result, Iowans will in effect have no legal recourse against future decisions by school boards.
Let’s not forget the nursing home bill that Iowa legislators also approved unanimously this year. That bill eliminated fines for the most common causes of neglect in nursing homes. Advocates for the elderly warned that the bill would make it easier for nursing home operators to violate Iowa law.
Federal laws approved with huge bipartisan majorities can turn out to be unwise as well. Some are merely useless, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which failed to curb unfair practices by private health insurance providers.
No one person could keep track of all the bills pending in Congress or even the Iowa legislature, but the film tax credit debacle should remind us all that the most significant bills aren’t always the ones that generate heated debate. By the same token, getting everyone to agree to do something doesn’t make it worth doing.
Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. […]
The overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. […]
The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April’s unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don’t care much or are not sure.
Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.
Selzer and Co. surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.
I recommend clicking through to view the chart showing the breakdown by party affiliation on this issue. Among independents, only 44 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision that cleared the way for marriage equality, while 32 percent “don’t care much” and 22 percent either favor or strongly favor it.
Many Iowa Republicans are convinced that they can gain traction in next year’s legislative elections by bashing statehouse Democrats who oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, the Republican candidate fell just short in the recent special election in Iowa House district 90, even though the National Organization for Marriage poured nearly $90,000 into ads supporting the Republican because of the marriage issue. (The NOM plans to be involved in next year’s Iowa elections as well.)
A poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog in July indicated that two-thirds of Iowans wanted a public vote on same-sex marriage, but that poll framed the question as follows: “The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, do you think Iowa voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution or is the issue best decided by the Supreme Court?” Todd Dorman was right to point out that it would have been more enlightening to ask respondents how they would vote on a marriage amendment.
The Register’s poll could strengthen the hand of Republicans like Doug Gross, who have been saying all year that the GOP should downplay divisive social issues and focus on the economy in next year’s elections. On the other hand, 51 percent of Republicans surveyed by Selzer and Co strongly oppose the Supreme Court decision, while 11 percent just oppose the decision, 27 percent don’t care much and only 10 percent either favor or strongly favor it. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats promises to issue an executive order on day one halting same-sex marriages if elected, and he will find plenty of support among the Republican rank and file.
I’ve been telling my friends, “Don’t worry, be happy,” since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision in April. I figured that with each passing year, more Iowans would understand that no one is harmed and thousands are helped by granting gays and lesbians civil marriage rights. I also felt that Republicans would not be able to win many races on this issue in 2010, let alone in subsequent years. Still, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a poll this year showing majority support for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Learning that a constitutional amendment on marriage lacks majority support even now makes me that much more optimistic. (UPDATE: Forgot to add that Iowa has a lengthy constitutional amendment process.)
I’M for Iowa made the announcement today in a mass e-mail:
For too long, Iowa’s airwaves have been dominated by Rush Limbaugh, Jan Mickelson, Steve Deace, Glen Beck and Michael Savage. Well, we have great news: times are changing!
Beginning Monday, September 21st, we will host our own talk show from 7:00 – 8:00 pm, Monday through Thursday on 98.3 WOW-FM. It’s called “THE FALLON FORUM” and can be heard from Fort Dodge to Chariton, from Grinnell to Carroll, and can be live-streamed at http://www.983wowfm.com. We hope you’ll tune in, and you can join the conversation at (515) 312-0983.
This is an unprecedented opportunity for those of us concerned about pressing economic, social and environmental issues. We want to offer true “talk” radio, as opposed to the “shock” radio dished-up by those on the far right. In fact, THE FALLON FORUM replaces some of the airtime currently given to Michael Savage, the guy who recently recommended making “the construction of mosques illegal in America, and the speaking of English only in the streets of the United States the law.”
We’ll kick off the show on Monday with Dolores Huerta. Dolores helped found the United Farm Workers of America with Cesar Chavez. At 79, she remains an energetic, outspoken advocate for many important causes, including marriage equality.
On Tuesday, we’ll dig into Iowa politics.
Zach Mannheimer with The Subjective Theatre Company joins us on Wednesday to discuss the merger of the artistic and corporate worlds. We anticipate a spirited exchange on the new sculpture garden set to open in downtown Des Moines.
On Thursday, we want to hear your thoughts on America’s historic health care debate . . . providing you keep it civil and based on fact. We’ll pull the plug on any caller who insists the legislation before Congress pulls the plug on grandma.
Thanks, and we hope you can join us on the show next week!
School board elections are being held across Iowa today. Here’s why you should get out and vote.
1. Everyone should support strong educational standards in our schools and competent management of the school district’s affairs, whether or not you have kids in school or will have in the future.
2. Your vote is more likely to make a difference in a low-turnout school board election. Many of these races will be decided by a handful of votes.
You should vote even if your school board election is a snoozer, with only as many registered candidates as seats available. Extremely low turnout creates opportunities for fringe candidates to win seats on write-in campaigns.
3. Your property tax dollars are being spent in the local schools, whether or not you have kids. Homes in a good school district are often worth more than comparable homes in an area with lower-performing schools.
4. School board members vote on some issues that affect the broader economy and quality of life. For instance, property values in established neighborhoods and the ability of many kids to walk to school were harmed when school boards closed Roosevelt Elementary in Ames a few years ago and voted this year to close Roosevelt Elementary in Iowa City.
Iowa school boards will be less constrained in making decisions on school closures going forward. This summer, the Iowa Supreme Court invalidated the Barker rules on school closure procedures that the State Board of Education adopted more than 30 years ago. That ruling simultaneously rejected the lawsuit of parents challenging the Des Moines school board’s decision a few years ago to close several schools. Click here for the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (pdf file).
5. Iowans will have almost no legal recourse against future decisions by school boards, thanks to a law the Iowa legislature adopted during the 2009 session. House File 233 was a below-the-radar bill that unanimously passed both the House and Senate. It changed the rules so that citizens have only ten days (as opposed to the 12 months previously allowed) to file a lawsuit challenging a school board’s decision on disposition of property.
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to find plaintiffs, hire legal counsel, draft arguments and file a complaint in ten days. It’s disappointing that a bill limiting legal checks on a school board’s actions passed with so little public debate. Despite following the news during the legislative session closely, I would never have heard about this bill if not for a panel discussion at the 1000 Friends of Iowa annual meeting in July.
House File 233 makes it all the more important for citizens to choose their school board members wisely. Abuses of power can happen, and there’s no guarantee school boards will always comply with the law. For instance, Spirit Lake school board members “met illegally twice in 2007 and 2008” and were fined by a judge this year. Amazingly, no challengers filed to run against two of the incumbents involved.
If you’re reading this post at work, it should only take you a few minutes to vote on the way home today. Or, if you’re reading this at home, zip out to vote before or after dinner.
Sometimes it can be hard to figure out what the candidates stand for based on news reports or vague campaign mailings. If you aren’t sure how to vote, ask a friend who has attended a candidate forum or has been following the school board campaign closely. (Teachers and retired teachers can be good sources of information.) Many of my well-informed friends speak highly of Des Moines school board candidate Margaret Buckton, for instance.
Please post any comments about education or school board elections in this thread.
For starters, I don’t think leaving the lobbying playing field to non-government interests only is smart. I’m not sure how the public interest is advanced by allowing, for example, a corporation to lobby for loosened pollution rules while barring state regulators from pushing the other way.
Second, lawmakers would lose a pretty important resource. I can’t tell you how many times I saw members of a legislative committee get stuck in the complex details of a piece of legislation before turning to the audience and finding a department lobbyist who swiftly cleared up the confusion. Walling off one branch of government from another is going to slow down a process that’s already painfully slow.
Third, it really doesn’t bother me that state departments pursue legislative agendas. It’s not OK for the attorney general to lobby for tougher criminal penalties? The Department of Public Health should be barred from advocating for pandemic preparedness funding?
I agree totally, and Fong should be prepared to refute Dorman’s points if he is a serious thinker about policy, as opposed to a candidate taking cheap shots.
My only problem with Dorman’s column is that he cites this Des Moines Register report as saying that “state departments spent $1.8 million on lobbying state lawmakers” during the past year. In fact, the Register arrived at that figure by including lobbying expenses of “state agencies, municipalities, county agencies and associations where member dues are paid by taxpayers, such as the Iowa League of Cities.”
Ask anyone who has spent time at the statehouse; the League of Cities and State Association of Counties are forces to be reckoned with. It’s not hard to see why, since a lot of bills considered by the legislature affect city and county governments. I wonder whether Fong really thinks the governor should ban cities and counties from making their voices heard with state legislators.
In related news, Fong still hasn’t corrected his ad’s demonstrably false statement about the I-JOBS bonding initiative. He knows how financial markets work, and it doesn’t reflect well on him that he would mislead voters by claiming the state of Iowa is borrowing money to pay our bills.
State Representative Kerry Burt received a year of probation and a $625 fine after pleading guilty to drunk driving, the Des Moines Register reported on August 21. He will also be required to take a class for drunk drivers. Burt released a statement apologizing for his actions and promising never to let it happen again. I’ve posted that statement after the jump. It doesn’t sound like he’s planning to resign.
I would like Democrats to find a new candidate for House district 21 next year. The Register pointed out that State Senator Robert Dvorsky was re-elected in 2006 despite a drunk driving arrest earlier that year, but Dvorsky had spent nearly two decades in the Iowa legislature at that time and represents a safe Democratic district. Burt is in his first term and defeated a Republican incumbent by a narrow margin in 2008. He is also among several people being investigated for giving false addresses in order to evade tuition payments at the University of Northern Iowa’s Malcolm Price Laboratory School.
Neither Republican Stephen Burgmeier nor Democrat Curt Hanson has highlighted same-sex marriage rights during the campaign for the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90. However, a group opposing marriage equality is funding an intense advertising campaign in the district.
Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent noticed that the “National Organization for Marriage has purchased $86,060 worth of television and radio ads” to help Burgmeier. That is a major ad buy for an Iowa legislative election. Martyn uploaded an independent expenditure report (pdf file) that the group filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, but that didn’t include information about the content or placement of the ads.
If you have seen or heard any advertising paid for by National Organization for Marriage, please post a comment in this thread or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com with as much detail as possible about the message. How many different versions of the ads are running? Do the commercials mention any issues besides overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage? Do they mainly support Burgmeier, who is under attack from a right-wing candidate? Or do they also attack Hanson, and if so, using what kind of language?
This year Republican leaders in the legislature and the state party apparatus have talked much more about economic and fiscal issues than about the religious right’s agenda. Even in the weeks following the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, the state party said little about gay marriage.
However, some social conservatives don’t appreciate being told to keep their mouths shut while doing heavy lifting for Republicans. One of them is Dan Cesar, who ran in House district 90 last year on the Fourth of July ticket when Republicans declined to field a candidate against incumbent John Whitaker. Cesar is running in the special election too and is bashing Burgmeier:
“[Burgmeier] has avoided the words pro-life in everything he says. He’s avoided the fact that he’s a Catholic and belongs to a faith community. I take exception to that. His handlers are telling him to do that.” […]
“The [Republican] party told me they don’t want to focus on pro-life,” he said. “So I either run again as a third party or shut up. Shut up and let a coward run as a Democrat and someone I consider a sellout run as a Republican. I stood up and said I will run.”
The Iowa GOP will likely repeat the district 90 playbook across the state next year, especially if Burgmeier wins on September 1. Social conservatives won’t appreciate being marginalized. If Democratic candidate Curt Hanson prevails in district 90, the religious right-wingers will probably be even more angry, claiming that social issues could have won the day.
This argument is sure to continue during the Republican gubernatorial primary, which will come down to Bob Vander Plaats against someone backed by the business wing (Terry Branstad, Chris Rants or Christian Fong). Vander Plaats believes the GOP can win by embracing “core principles” and “bold-color conservatism that inspires faith, family and freedom.”
Two and a half weeks before the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90, Republican Stephen Burgmeier’s campaign launched its first television commercial:
The producers fit quite a few misleading statements into one 30-second ad. The visual suggests Iowa has taken on “a billion dollar debt,” and the voice-over emphasizes the word “billion,” even though the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative was for $830 million.
The commercial accuses “Governor Culver and his allies” of borrowing “almost a BILLION dollars to pay their bills.” However, the I-JOBS program was created to fund infrastructure projects and has nothing to do with meeting state government’s ongoing spending obligations. (Click here for a breakdown of how the money will be spent.)
During this recession, several other states have been forced to borrow money to pay their bills, but Iowa is borrowing for capital investments. Credit analysts and national institutional investors understand the difference, even if Iowa Republicans don’t. That’s why “investor enthusiasm and high market demand” drove down the interest rate on the I-JOBS bonds.
Next, Burgmeier’s ad shows a man saying, “That’s money taxpayers are on the hook for,” implying that taxes will go up to repay the debt. In fact, existing gaming revenues will provide the approximately $43.2 million in annual payments on the bonds.
The ad begins with a voice-over asserting that “red ink is rising in Des Moines” and later shows a woman saying, “Stop the red ink.” Those statements, along with the cartoon of red ink drowning Culver and the capitol, wrongly suggest that the infrastructure borrowing is deficit spending.
The second part of the ad promises that Burgmeier will vote for a new budget law “to make it harder to waste tax dollars.” I’d like more details about how such a law would work, and I’d also like Burgmeier to specify which of these investments he considers wasteful.
The ad promises Burgmeier will “serve as a check and balance to Governor Culver’s runaway spending” and closes by saying Burgmeier will bring “balance and spending restraint back to our government.” Iowa Republicans may believe Culver is very unpopular in district 90, or they may have decided to run against him in order to rile up their base. It’s notable that the ad never uses the word “Republican” and doesn’t identify the candidate’s political party. I guess the outside interest groups running the Burgmeier campaign don’t have much confidence in the Republican brand to carry the day.
The Iowa GOP didn’t announce the size of the ad buy, which networks would run the ad or which programs have been targeted. If you live in the viewing area for this district, let us know whether you’ve seen the ad, and if so during which television shows. If you prefer not to post a comment here, you can send me a confidential e-mail at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. Please also report on any radio ads you’ve heard.
I’m curious to see whether this will be Burgmeier’s only television commercial or if his campaign will mention other issues, including same-sex marriage, in later ads.
Having spent no time in this district lately, I have no idea whether Burgmeier or Democrat Curt Hanson has an edge. Political scientists will tell you that as a general rule, the party out of power does well in low-turnout by-elections and special elections. Both Democrats and Republicans are working hard to get out the vote in district 90. State GOP Chairman Matt Strawn and some other Republicans view this race as a must-win.
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.
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.
When your party suffers a net loss of seats in the state House and Senate for four elections in a row, it’s time to try something different. In the case of the Republican Party of Iowa, that apparently means outsourcing operations for the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90.
In a July 31 e-mail blast, Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn encouraged activists to contact “Matt Gronewald, our Legislative Majority Fund Director,” if they would like to volunteer for Stephen Burgmeier, the Republican candidate in district 90. However, Burgmeier’s campaign website tells the real story:
Ed Failor Jr. and Iowans for Tax Relief are running the entire campaign effort in the special election…
Word is that Failor has committeed big dollars to the race and already has his ITR staff embedded in the district and running the race […]
Anybody that questions the power and influence of Failor and ITR need to look no further than this race…they are running this race…and are in charge of all House and Senate elections…
The special election in district 90 won’t change the balance of power in the Iowa House, but it is the first high-profile race since Republicans selected Strawn to be state chairman in January. Strawn can’t be too confident about the party’s ability to fund and manage a statehouse campaign if he is giving outside interest groups control over this race.
Groups that throw receptions for Iowa legislators are supposed to file a disclosure report within five business days of the event, but the Iowa Pharmacy Association filed paperwork for its February 10 reception only this week. Why now? Journalists have been asking about the event that preceded State Representative Kerry Burt’s drunk driving arrest around 2 am on February 11. Burt told an Ankeny police officer that he’d been drinking with the governor that evening.
I agree with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; the Iowa Pharmacy Association’s disclosure violation once again demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform. I’ve posted a press release from Iowa CCI after the jump. Excerpt:
Several years ago, 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 amount of money spent at lobbying events.
“What other profession in the state is allowed to regulate themselves,” asks Ed Rethman, Iowa CCI member from West Des Moines. “Are doctors allowed to license themselves?”
The Des Moines Register reported in April that many interest groups are providing free food and drink to legislators without properly disclosing how much they spend on these events. Usually, the public never finds out about these events, because no one gets arrested afterwards.
Please find us a new candidate in Iowa House district 21. State Representative Kerry Burt should not run for re-election and probably should not even serve out his term. It would be hard enough to salvage a political career in light of a state auditor’s report and criminal investigation over Burt giving a false address to evade tuition fees for his children. But this report is just as disturbing:
Rep. Kerry Burt, D-Waterloo, told Ankeny police in February that he could not be arrested because of his position as a state representative, according to the police report.
Burt also told police that it was not a question of how much he had to drink but “who he was drinking with.” Burt then whispered, “the governor,” according to police reports.
Burt apparently also mentioned that he was a firefighter and asked for some “professional courtesy” instead of arrest. His attorney says his comments are being taken out of context. I don’t know what the criminal investigation regarding the tuition fees will conclude, and I don’t know whether Burt will be convicted of the drunk driving charge, but it looks to me like his political career is over.
“Obviously this is a very serious legal matter and it’s very troubling to see how dangerous this situation really was,” Culver said, later adding that he was only with Burt that night for about 30 minutes at a dinner attended by roughly 15 people.
“I have no idea what he did after I left that dinner at 8:55. I was home at 9 o’clock. He was arrested at 2 a.m. I have no idea really what he did between 9 and 2.”
Culver declined to say if he believed Burt should resign. That decision, Culver said, is for Burt to make.
We have a lot of good Democrats in the Waterloo area. Please post a comment if you have any suggestions about good candidates for this House district in 2010, or sooner if a special election is needed.
Political activity slows down during the summer, especially in an off-year, but there’s still plenty for progressives to do. Event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of other events I’ve left out.
If you live near southeast Iowa, please consider volunteering for Curt Hanson, Democratic candidate for the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90. UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin is headlining a fundraiser for Hanson on Saturday, Augsut 1. Details below.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is looking for volunteers during the Iowa State Fair (August 13-23):
The Iowa DNR River Programs will be at the Iowa State Fair this year and requests your help to staff our booth at the DNR building. We will have a River Programs staff person there the whole time, but our space is much larger this year. Because of the large number of visitors who pass through the building, any help we can get is greatly appreciated. We are asking for a 5 hour shift from each volunteer. You may sign up for more than one shift if you’d like. The morning shift will be from 9:00 to 2:00 and the afternoon shift will be from 2:00 to 7:00. What you get: A River Programs Volunteer Cap and a ticket to the fair the day you volunteer, and the satisfaction of knowing you made a difference.
Please respond by email or phone with your desired shift(s) and availability Thursday, August 13th through Sunday August 23rd to John Wenck, IDNR River programs outreach coordinator, John.Wenck@dnr.iowa.gov, 515-281-8969 or 515-491-9881.
Born and raised on an Iowa family farm, Hanson has been living and teaching in Fairfield for over 43 years. He attended the University of Northern Iowa and received his masters from the University of Iowa. He and his wife, Diane, have two grown children. They are members of First United Methodist Church and Curt is also a member of the Fairfield Kiwanis Club.
“My parents taught me the importance of hard work, helping neighbors, and service to community. Those Iowa values will guide my work as the next State Representative for District 90,” said Hanson. “My priorities are simple: balance the state budget, create good-paying jobs in key industries like renewable energy, make health care more affordable for middle class families, and ensure our kids have the education and skills they need to get a job in these tough economic times.”
Hanson is a retired teacher and driver education instructor in Fairfield. He has been selected by his community as Fairfield Teacher of the Year and has been selected by his peers to serve those in the teaching profession at both the local and state levels. He was also runner-up National Driver Education Teacher of the Year and has served as President and Business Manager of the Iowa Association of Safety Education.
“As State Representative, I can promise the people of Jefferson, Van Buren, and Wapello Counties two things – I’ll work hard and I’ll always listen to you,” concluded Hanson.
Republicans would like to win this special election for many reasons, not least to fire up their base about the potential to demagogue against committed same-sex Iowa couples next year.
If you live in House district 90 or volunteer during this campaign, please consider posting diaries about your view from the ground. Scanning or transcribing campaign ads and fliers would be great material for a post. It only takes a minute to register for a Bleeding Heartland account. Or, you can e-mail me confidentially about what you’re seeing (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I’m curious to know whether The Iowa Republican’s Al Swearengen was correct about Ed Failor’s staffers from Iowans for Tax Relief running Burgmeier’s campaign operation.
If you live within striking distance of this district, please consider volunteering for Democratic candidate Curt Hanson. His campaign website is here, and he’s also on Twitter and Facebook. This will be a low-turnout election, so a strong volunteer effort will be essential.
According to Bleeding Heartland user im4klein, the GOP will announce its candidate in House district 90 today or tomorrow. Supposedly he is a farmer who has won elections in the past. Sounds like a county supervisor to me, but we’ll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: The Republican candidate for this special election is indeed a county supervisor–to be more precise, Jefferson County supervisor Stephen Burgmeier. Click the link to read his press release. The last time Burgmeier was on my radar screen, he and his fellow supervisors had passed a resolution on April 27, 2009, asking the Iowa legislature to stop same-sex marriages. Burgmeier’s timing was either brilliant (because April 27 was the first day for legal same-sex marriages in Iowa) or stupid (because the legislature had just adjourned for the year on April 26). I expect him to make gay marriage a major issue in this special election campaign.
Ed Failor Jr. and Iowans for Tax Relief are running the entire campaign effort in the [House district 90] special election…
Word is that Failor has committeed big dollars to the race and already has his ITR staff embedded in the district and running the race… […]
Anybody that questions the power and influence of Failor and ITR need to look no further than this race…they are running this race…and are in charge of all [Iowa] House and Senate elections…
Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation is investigating a case that involves a state audit that indicates a representative shortchanged an Iowa school $37,000, a state spokesman confirmed today.
No charges have been filed against Rep. Kerry Burt, D-Waterloo, but if the accusations prove to be accurate, they ultimately could lead to his removal from office, according to Iowa law.
House Speaker Pat Murphy told the Register, “I think [Burt] has a very good record, and I stand behind him at this point, and I’m 100 percent with him.” I hope Murphy has a plan B in case the criminal investigation confirms the allegations in the state auditor’s report. Burt’s seat wasn’t going to be an easy hold even before this scandal, because of his arrest in February on a drunk driving charge, which has not yet gone to trial.
We have a lot of good Democrats in the Waterloo area, and I’d like to see someone else on our ballot line in House district 21 next year.
However, John Deeth noted last month that this district has been competitive in the recent past. I want to hear from Democrats familiar with Jefferson and Van Buren counties: who should run for Whitaker’s seat? Anyone know who might run on the Republican side? (UPDATE: According to IowaPolitics.com, “community activist and educator Curt Hanson of Fairfield,” a retired teacher and Democrat, has already announced that he’s running for this seat. His campaign website is here, and he’s already on Twitter and Facebook.)
The University of Northern Iowa’s Malcolm Price Laboratory School failed to collect more than $250,000 in tuition from a dozen families, including a state representative and the school’s former executive director, the state auditor said Thursday.[…]
– Burt had children enrolled in the school since 2001. He listed a home owned by Marguerite Pircer, who said Burt is her daughter’s paternal uncle, as his childrens’ address. Pircer said Burt’s children never lived in her home. Burt told state auditors that “Mr. Smith and several other staff knew my niece lived at the 1815 Franklin Street and no one questioned it.” He also said David Smith knew he had a Waterloo address.
The unpaid registration fees for Burt’s children were $37,139.
Burt declined comment Thursday, saying all questions had to be directed to his attorneys.
In an unrelated matter, the first-term lawmaker has also pleaded innocent to a drunken driving charge filed against him earlier this spring.
For once I agree with Republican Party of Iowa chairman Matt Strawn, who called for Burt to resign and repay the tuition fees his family evaded. I don’t want this guy on the ballot as a Democrat next year. I don’t want other Democrats publicly defending him. I don’t want the Iowa House Ethics Committee to settle this matter. Whatever they do to discipline Burt, they’ll be accused of going too easy on him.
It’s a real shame. Burt’s victory over Republican incumbent Tami Wiencek was a pleasant surprise last November. Iowa Democrats hadn’t targeted House district 21, but Burt won by about 200 votes. I want to hear from Democrats familiar with Black Hawk County: who should run for this seat if Burt steps down?
Districts 90 and 21 are more important holds than, say, Larry Marek’s seat in House district 89, because Whitaker and Burt weren’t part of the “six-pack” that kept us from getting 51 votes for some important bills.
· Improving and expanding services for unemployed Iowa workers. By making reforms to Iowa’s unemployment insurance program, our state will receive $70.8 million from the federal government to extend benefits for unemployed workers in training programs. It makes sense to support Iowans who are trying to upgrade their skills by attending community college and other types of training.
· Paying unemployment claims for replacement workers who become unemployed when Iowa National Guard and Reserve members return to their local jobs after active duty. When our soldiers come home, the state should help the replacement workers without penalizing employers.
· Providing $18.9 million to workforce field offices across Iowa. Iowa has 55 workforce centers, which provide job counseling, training, placement and other assistance. These services help laid off workers move forward and help local businesses find the employees they need.
Note: the $70.8 million in federal funding for expanded unemployment benefits came from the economic stimulus bill, or American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. All House Republicans, including Iowa’s Tom Latham and Steve King, voted against that bill, as did almost all Senate Republicans, including Chuck Grassley.
I mentioned in this post that it’s been a full year since the Iowa Smokefree Air Act went into effect. The public smoking ban was one of the most controversial bills considered during the 2008 legislative session, and advocates praised the law’s success at a press conference this week.
According to a recent Iowa Department of Public Health survey, 14 percent of Iowans smoke. In 2007, IDPH research estimated the smoking rate at 19 percent. That’s a significant decline, suggesting that around one-quarter of Iowans who smoked in 2007 have since quit. The $1 a pack tax hike on cigarettes approved in 2007 was probably a major factor in this trend as well.
The overwhelming majority of Iowa businesses are complying with the smoking ban, according to a June 30 press release from the IDPH. A little more than 1 percent of Iowa businesses with employees (1,015 to be exact) have received a “Notice of Potential Violation” from the IDPH. Of those, approximately half are bars and restaurants. I’m not surprised, since bar and restaurant owners were the smoking ban’s most vocal opponents (despite research showing that smoking bans do not hurt businesses in the hospitality industry). For those who want more details on compliance with the Smokefree Air Act, I’ve posted the IDPH press release after the jump.
Total gross receipts for FY 2009 are $6.921 billion, which is only $57.7 million lower than the Revenue Estimating Conference’s official estimate of $6.979 billion.
Dick Oshlo, state budget director, said: “With yesterday marking the end of the fiscal year, we now know the state’s gross receipts for FY 2009. While the state’s tax receipts deteriorated more than expected during the last two months of the fiscal year due to the ongoing effects of the national economic recession, this is a manageable number. Fortunately, receipts improved during the final days of June. At this point we see no legitimate reason for a special session to balance the state’s budget.”
Meanwhile, Republican State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants says Governor Chet Culver should call legislators back to the capitol:
“It is time to quit worrying about the political ramifications of admitting that we have a deficit and get about the business of fixing it,” Rants said. “Gov. [Tom] Vilsack put aside partisan politics and called a special session in 2001 and 2002 to balance the budget after revenues declined. Culver needs to do the same.”
I wasn’t living here during Vilsack’s first term and don’t know how bad the projected shortfalls were in those years, compared to what Iowa is facing now. Culver’s office argues that we won’t know the real picture for a while yet:
The LSA’s figures are just estimates, and true net receipts won’t be known until September when the Department of Management closes the books on the fiscal year 2009 budget.
There is also revenue that will be collected within the next 90 days but allocated to the fiscal year that ended Tuesday, money that will improve the state’s financial situation and is not included in the LSA projections.
Culver Press Secretary Troy Price told the Iowa Independent last month that until accruals, expenditures and refunds are all taken into account there is no way of getting an accurate picture of the 2009 budget.
Like Chris Woods, I felt a special session was warranted last year to address flood relief and recovery issues, but that never happened. Incidentally, many Iowa Republicans opposed calling the legislature back in response to the flooding.
I’d like to hear from others in the Bleeding Heartland community. Should Culver call legislators back in light of the possible budget deficit?
I’ll update this post later today after Culver’s press conference with State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald. According to Lynn Campbell of IowaPolitics.com, they will discuss the budget and “new info” on state finances.
LATE UPDATE: Forgot to update yesterday. As you can see from ragbrai08’s comment below, Vilsack called a special session in October 2001. Like Culver, he waited until all the numbers were in (rather than calling the legislature back shortly after June 30). It’s quite misleading for Rants to suggest Culver is being less prudent here than Vilsack.
At yesterday’s press conference, Culver said he is “very confident” the 2009 budget is balanced. He and Fitzgerald emphasized Iowa’s AAA bond rating:
“In a very partisan way, the Republicans running for governor are misleading people,” Culver says. “…So I think it’s very important to make sure that we hold those people accountable that are misleading Iowans. It’s just not fair. It’s not appropriate and there’s no need for alarm.” […]
Culver is also stressing that the Wall Street firm “Standard and Poors” just “reaffirmed” Iowa’s triple-A bond rating.
“What a timely testimonial from (Standard and Poors.) They’re just looked at our books inside and out,” Culver says. “They’ve looked at our debt. They’ve looked at our revenue streams. They’ve determined…that Iowa is one of the best-managed states in America.”
That triple-A bond rating (the highest on the Standard and Poors scale) means Iowa will be able to borrow money for the I-JOBS program at favorable interest rates.
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.
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.
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.
A special task force drew up the standards, which set limits on calories, fat content, sugar and other nutritional measures. Carbonated beverages are banned. Caffeinated beverages and sports drinks are banned in elementary schools.
But the rules do not apply to food provided by school lunch or breakfast programs, items sold at concession stands or certain fundraisers or items provided by parents, teachers or others for class events.
By that time, the regulations may have been relaxed, judging from what happened last week in the state legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee (unofficial motto: “Where good rules go to die”). The rest of the story is after the jump.
Since the fiasco that doomed the “prevailing wage” bill in February, I’ve thought that electing better Democrats to the state legislature is at least as important as electing more Democrats. With a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House, it’s ridiculous not to be able to find 51 votes for some of these bills.
According to a letter I received last weekend, Ed and Lynn Fallon of I’M for Iowa are already meeting with potential progressive challengers in some House districts. I’ve posted the full text of the letter after the jump. I share their disappointment with what the Democratic “trifecta” has accomplished since the 2006 elections.
Good opportunities for primary challengers include districts that are relatively safe for Democrats in the general election. That points to “six-pack” members Huser (House district 42), Brian Quirk (district 15) and Doris Kelley (district 20).
Challenging the rest of the group is somewhat more risky. McKinley Bailey (district 9), Larry Marek (district 89) and Dolores Mertz (district 8) represent marginal districts. In fact, first-termer Marek will probably be the most endangered Democratic House incumbent next year. Bailey beat back a strong challenge from Republicans to win a second term by a fairly healthy margin in 2008, but according to this report by Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock, some House Democrats have been “quietly concerned” that he might consider switching parties.
Mertz is a longtime incumbent in a very conservative district. In the unlikely event that a progressive challenger defeated her, Republicans would almost certainly pick up the seat. On the other hand, a smaller Democratic House caucus without Mertz would be an improvement over a larger caucus with Mertz, in my opinion. As chair of the House Agriculture Committee, she blocks any decent bill in sight, and she will be the Republicans’ biggest Democratic ally in the fight to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.
Two big questions come to mind. First, will organized labor put money and/or foot soldiers into serious Democratic primary races? Earlier this year, Ken Sagar of the Iowa AFL-CIO didn’t rule out supporting competitors to Democrats who are unfriendly to labor.
I look forward to reading your comments on whether it’s worth taking on any House Democratic incumbents next year, and if so, which ones. The Fallons’ letter laying out the case for primary challenges is after the jump.
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).
Iowa Republicans are bashing Governor Chet Culver for appointing Kate Gronstal to the I-JOBS board, which will decide how to spend $118.5 million of the $830 million in I-JOBS money. Kate Gronstal is the daughter of Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal.
“I’m sure there are thousands of qualified engineers in this state that don’t raise the red flag that someone who is an immediate family member of a legislator in charge of ramming this through the Senate,” Strawn said.
Since Culver “declined to respond” to Strawn’s allegation, I want to lay out the case for putting Kate Gronstal on this board.
1. She is qualified for the position as a professionally trained structural engineer. It’s not as if the governor put a well-connected person with no relevant experience on the board.
2. By all accounts she is smart and highly capable. People born into political families have certain doors opened for them. I’m sure Marcus Branstad had a leg up on the competition when he was starting his career in Iowa Republican circles. Who cares as long as he is good at what he does?
3. Kate Gronstal’s presence on the board will subject its award process to a higher level of scrutiny. That’s good.
I supported the large infrastructure bonding package because Iowa’s debt load is not that high, interest rates are relatively low, and public works projects can improve the quality of life in the long term while creating jobs in the short term.
Iowa Republicans never liked Culver’s bonding plan, and they’ll be watching for any mistakes that bolster their misleading talking points. With Kate Gronstal on the I-JOBS board, Republicans will use any unworthy project approved to highlight alleged Democratic nepotism and mismanagement.
I-JOBS has the potential to make Iowa a better place to live. Governor Culver has appointed a qualified board to administer the program. All the board members, and especially Kate Gronstal, have strong incentives to demonstrate that they can handle this responsibility.
After the jump I’ve posted the governor’s press release containing bios for all members of the I-JOBS Board and the Accountability And Transparency Board, which will “make sure Iowa meets or exceeds the accountability and transparency requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (also known as the federal economic stimulus bill).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.”
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.)
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.
– 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
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.
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.
