Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY’s List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY’s List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to knock any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald’s race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY’s list is not more involved in IA-04.  

Follow me after the jump for more.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had big news today for Becky Greenwald:

For Immediate Release            

September 12, 2008                                                                                    

DCCC Places Greenwald for Congress on the Emerging Races List

Waukee, IA – Today, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced they put Becky Greenwald’s race for Congress on its final Emerging Races list. Emerging Races are candidates that have generated excitement in their districts in their campaigns for change. This is the first time since 2002 the DCCC has become involved in the 4th District.

“We are thrilled the DCCC has chosen our race for their Emerging Races list,” said Becky Greenwald. “The DCCC is seeing what we have been seeing for months: voters in the 4th District want an independent thinker who will work to make a real difference for Iowans.”

“For too long, Tom Latham has been a wingman for George Bush and blames Congress, the same place he has been for 14 years, for getting nothing done for Iowans,” Greenwald continued. “Enough is enough. I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District.”

Greenwald is on her “Enough is Enough Tour” exposing Tom Latham’s lack of action on education, national security, energy, healthcare and the economy. Last week, the campaign launched www.replacetomlatham.com and the Latham-Bush caption contest.

I suspect that this means Greenwald’s fundraising has been quite strong since June 30.

The Emerging Races list includes candidates the DCCC is considering for its Red to Blue list. The Red to Blue candidates receive significant funding and/or television advertising help from the DCCC.

Greenwald can beat Tom Latham.

The big gains in Democratic voter registration, combined with the Democratic advantage in the generic Congressional ballot, Barack Obama’s big lead over John McCain in Iowa and the Obama campaign’s enormous ground game all will be working in her favor.

She doesn’t need to match Latham’s spending dollar for dollar, but she does need to raise enough cash to go up on television and persuade groups like the DCCC and EMILY’s list to get involved.

The next reporting period ends September 30. Please go here and give what you can to Becky’s campaign.

If you live in or near the fourth Congressional district and would like to volunteer, please call the main campaign office at (515) 987-2800 and ask to speak to John.

It’s always good to see lockstep Republicans held accountable for their bad votes in Congress.

Becky Greenwald’s “Enough is Enough” tour began today on the campuses of Simpson College, Iowa State University, and Des Moines Area Community College in Boone. She hit fourth district incumbent Tom Latham hard on his record on student loans. From a statement released by the Greenwald campaign:

“I am running for Congress because we need an independent thinker in Washington who will get to work to make a difference for Iowans,” said Becky Greenwald. “For too long, my opponent Tom Latham has been a low-yielding Congressman for Iowa. He supported the Republican Party and George Bush 94% of the time. Enough is enough.”

Unfortunately, their failed policies included severe cuts for student loans. Tom Latham has made it harder for middle class families to send their kids to college by voting for the largest cuts to federal student aid in history in 2005 and 2006. The measure cut close to $13 billion from student loan programs. He also voted against the largest increase to student loans since the G.I. Bill in 2007.

“I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District,” said Greenwald. “We can make a difference to bring relief for students who currently have loans and other people seeking a college education but are disenchanted by the cost.”

Becky will fight to make college more affordable by working to increase the maximum Pell grant, lowering interest rates on student loans, and fighting for more need-based financial aid, such as work-study, Perkins loans, and the LEAP program.  She will help students secure the loans that they need and will curb the practice of unscrupulous lenders exploiting students.

Tomorrow Becky will focus on national security during stops in Fort Dodge, Belmond and Mason City. Click here for event details.

Democratic candidate for Congress Becky Greenwald, who is challenging Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth district, is holding public events around central and northern Iowa today and tomorrow as part of her “Enough is Enough” tour.

Today’s events will focus on education and student loans. Greenwald will speak at Simpson College, Iowa State University and the Des Moines Area Community College’s Boone campus. Event details:

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

Indianola, IA

Simpson College

Camp Lounge

2:00 PM – 3:00 PM

Ames, IA

Iowa State University

Memorial Union Room 3538

2229 Lincoln Way

4:30 PM – 5:30 PM

Boone, IA

DMACC Boone Campus

Room 160

1125 Hancock Drive

On Thursday, September 11, Greenwald will talk about national security and veterans’ issues in the following locations:

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

Fort Dodge, IA

Bloomers on Central

900 Central Ave # 10

3:00 PM – 4:00 PM

Belmond, IA

Leinbach Center

116 Luick’s Lane North

6:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Mason City, IA

Borealis Coffee

316 N Federal Ave

Please post a comment or a diary if you go see Greenwald make the case for replacing Latham, whom her campaign has termed “Iowa’s Low-Yielding Congressman”:

“I am running for Congress because we need an independent thinker in Washington who will get to work to make a difference for Iowans,” said Becky Greenwald. “For too long, Tom Latham has been a wingman for George Bush and blames Congress, the same place he has been for 14 years, for getting nothing done for Iowans. Enough is enough. I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District.”

Exposing Latham’s loyalty to George Bush and the failed Republican agenda is crucial to this campaign. Latham is not as outspoken as Congressman Steve King, but he has been an even more loyal foot soldier for Bush and the GOP leadership.  

The Iowa Attorney General’s office on Tuesday charged the Agriprocessors meat-packing facility with more than 9,000 child labor law violations involving 32 minors. The owner and four Agriprocessors employees were named in the charges. A spokesman for the company said the children had lied about their ages, so the company was not at fault.

The Des Moines Register quoted Attorney General Tom Miller as saying the action will not force the closure of the Postville plant. However, I wouldn’t be too sure of that if the Orthodox Union follows through on its warning to withdraw its kosher supervision from Agriprocessors unless new management is installed at the company and at the Postville plant.

I can’t overstate the importance of the Orthodox Union’s kosher certification to Agriprocessors’ business. The overwhelming majority of its customers would refuse to buy any meat lacking the “U” symbol from the Orthodox Union.

Incidentally, Congressman Bruce Braley issued a statement praising Miller’s office for prosecuting alleged child labor offenses.

Congressman Tom Latham (whose district includes Postville) released no statement, in keeping with his pattern of saying little about Agriprocessors since a federal immigration raid turned the spotlight on the company in May.

Iowa Republicans have reason to be very afraid. Time/CNN released an Iowa poll yesterday:

(828 RV, 3.5%)

Obama 55, McCain 40

Obama 51, McCain 38, Nader 4, Barr 3, McKinney 2

The top line is probably closer to the real state of play. Election-year polling usually overstates support for third-party candidates. There is no way Ralph Nader will win 4 percent in Iowa this year when he barely got 2 percent in 2000 and couldn’t even manage 1 percent in 2004. I highly doubt Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney will win even 1 percent of the vote combined.

Getting back to the really scary news for Republicans,

“Obama is winning in all regions of the state, even in the western counties, where George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 17 points,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “Obama is winning rural voters in Iowa, not something you see in many other states.”

This poll was in the field from August 31 to September 2–that is, after John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, but before the Republican National Convention.

Even if McCain gets a bump out of this week, he will still be well behind Obama in Iowa. I predict that this poll will cause McCain to throw in the towel here so that he can focus on his must-win states, such as Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Colorado. (Any one of those states would put Obama over the top if he holds the states John Kerry won and picks up Iowa and New Mexico, where he leads comfortably.)

In 2004 George Bush had a huge volunteer base in Iowa, and he and Dick Cheney visited this state several times in the final two months of the campaign. Even so, an incumbent president during wartime barely beat Kerry here.

What chance is there for John McCain, who has never built a strong organization in Iowa? Kerry’s GOTV operation was not on the same level as Obama’s is now. The Obama campaign has organized canvassing in dozens of Iowa towns almost every weekend since mid-July.

Down-ticket Democratic candidates have a huge opening, with big gains in voter registration all over the state and a superior ground game.

Time to open your wallets for Becky Greenwald and Rob Hubler, and volunteer for their campaigns if you live in the area. Also, drop by the fun ReplaceTomLatham.com site launched by the Greenwald campaign this week.

I’ll write more in the next few days on why Iowa’s fourth and fifth Congressional districts are winnable.

On Monday I received this release from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

Waukee, IA – Tom Latham this week continues to use taxpayer dollars to campaign using official Congressional events and mail pieces, instead of his campaign paying for his campaigning.

“Tom Latham has over $800,000 in his campaign account, yet he continues to hold events and send mail pieces paid for by the taxpayers,” said Greenwald Communications Director Erin Seidler. “With just two and a half months to Election Day, taxpayers are paying for Latham to campaign back in the district.”

This week, Tom Latham is holding official Congressional events in New Hampton, Cresco, Mason City, Forest City, Decorah and Waukon. He also sent out a four-page official Congressional mail piece earlier this month. The mail piece is attached to the release.

“Unfortunately, Tom Latham has chosen to campaign using tax dollars over the August recess, and he still refuses to debate with Becky Greenwald,” Seidler continued. “These same taxpayers that are paying for his events are voters, and they deserve to hear from both candidates on the issues.”

The Greenwald Campaign challenged Tom Latham to five debates, including four debates over the August recess. The Latham campaign declined the August recess debates. The Iowa Farmers Union then offered the Latham campaign a debate opportunity at their convention, an event Latham is attending. He also declined this offer.

Latham will be at the Iowa Farmers Union conference in Marshalltown tomorrow (Saturday). Maybe someone there will ask him to explain why he wouldn’t agree to a debate in that setting.

Speaking of which, drop me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you would be willing to show up in a chicken suit outside a Latham event in the coming weeks. Someone I know has a suit that activists can borrow.

I downloaded the Latham direct-mail piece alluded to above. It’s a clear abuse of the franking privilege, with the look and feel of campaign literature. I will put up the photos and transcribe the text in a future post. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for these glossy mailers.

Last week Becky Greenwald challenged Representative Tom Latham to five debates, including four this month when he is in Iowa for the summer recess.

The Iowa Farmers Union invited both candidates to debate at its annual conference in Marshalltown. Although Latham has already agreed to attend that event on August 23, he is refusing to debate Greenwald there. A statement from the Greenwald campaign calling on Latham to reconsider is after the jump.

I’m with former Congressman Berkley Bedell, who represented Iowa’s sixth district from 1975 to 1987. He wrote recently in the Sioux City Journal, “I never gave it a second thought as to whether or not I would debate in elections. As leader of the team, of course I debated any opponent.”

Bedell was commenting on Steve King’s refusal to debate his challenger, Rob Hubler, but his point applies to Latham as well.

This month would be a good time for an activist to rent a chicken suit and show up at Latham’s public events around the fourth district.

This came through from Becky Greenwald’s campaign today:

Waukee, IA – General Wesley Clark announced today he is endorsing Becky Greenwald for Congress. Greenwald is the Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District.

In announcing his endorsement, Clark noted Greenwald’s experience caring for Vietnam War veterans and strong commitment to bringing the troops home from Iraq.

“I’m endorsing Becky for Congress because her experience with the American Red Cross assisting wounded veterans returning home from the Vietnam War has shaped her strong commitment to our nation’s veterans,” said General Wesley Clark.

Tom Latham has voted to cut billions from Veterans programs in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. (HCR 95, Vote #78, 3/20/03)

“George Bush and Tom Latham have for too long cut funding for our troops returning from Iraq, and we need Becky in Congress to be a voice for our soldiers,” said General Clark.

Becky’s first job out was of college with the American Red Cross helping military dependents and wounded Veterans returning from Vietnam adjust to a life with injury and the scars of war.  She worked at Wilford Medical Center, the largest Air Force Hospital in the country. This experience has shaped her views and left her with an unyielding commitment to keeping the promises we have made to our troops.  

Becky supports a phased withdrawal from Iraq and is committed to bringing our troops home in a swift and safe fashion.  She supports a timeline for withdrawal that will maintain the safety and well-being of our troops.

“General Clark’s patriotism and service to our country is unmatched,” said Becky Greenwald. “I am honored to have his endorsement.”

I hope Clark will come to Iowa sometime this fall to campaign with our good Democratic candidates. He was one of the most sought-after surrogates during the 2006 Congressional elections.

Republicans like Tom Latham need to be held accountable for their voting records. Too often, the Republican leadership and its loyal foot soldiers have reduced spending on important services to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Latham’s frequent support for blank checks to fund the war in Iraq also need to be an issue in this campaign. A timeline for a phased withdrawal of our troops is entirely appropriate.

Representative Tom Latham is back in Iowa for the summer recess, and his challenger Becky Greenwald’s campaign manager sent an open letter to Latham’s campaign manager today asking the incumbent to participate in five debates, including four this month.

The full text of that letter is after the jump.

Meanwhile, Republican candidate Kim Schmett has taped a web ad of himself debating Congressman Leonard Boswell, making light of the fact that the third district incumbent is unlikely to agree to debate this fall.

The U.S. House is in its summer recess, but a bunch of Republicans are giving speeches in the chamber calling for a special session to deal with energy policy.

When there’s an opportunity to score political points without accomplishing anything on behalf of constituents, you know Steve King will be on the scene. Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate to represent Iowa’s fifth district, was rightly dismissive:

Hubler accuses King of grandstanding rather than working to find a “real” resolution. “This is another example of how it is better to go before the camera and try to make some kind of a show out of something,” Hubler says.

Hubler opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, something King supports, as Hubler says there’s a less than six-month supply of oil there and that wouldn’t dramatically reduce the price of gasoline. “I think we need to have a comprehensive approach. We need to understand that we have gotten to where we are because of bickering and because of arguing and because of a lack of congress — Republicans and Democrats — to really look at the future and say, ‘What do we need to be doing?,'” Hubler says. “We need to be looking at alternative, green answers. We need to get nuclear power onto the discussion table.”

Personally, I believe expanding nuclear power is too expensive and too risky, but by all means make it part of a comprehensive discussion on energy policy. I believe its shortcomings will be exposed when compared to less costly options for generating more power or reducing our electricity usage.

But getting back to the point of this diary, it’s typical of Steve King to seize any chance for a monologue as opposed to engaging in real dialogue. Last week King refused an invitation from the Sioux City Journal and the League of Women Voters to debate Hubler. King’s letter to the editor of the Sioux City Journal is after the jump, along with Hubler’s statement on the importance of public debates.

I was amused by King’s excuse for not participating in this debate. He blamed the Sioux City Journal and its “attacks on my character,” adding:

If there are to be Congressional debates, they will take place in a neutral environment.

I wonder what kind of “neutral environment” would satisfy King. He was willing to spend at least an hour answering friendly questions from his fans on a constituent conference call, but his staff screened out SW Iowa Guy’s efforts to ask him about debating Hubler.

I predict that King will find excuses for rejecting all invitations to debate, unless they come from some group like the pro-corporate Club for Growth, which gave King a 98 percent rating on its latest scorecard.

UPDATE: I missed this hilarious passage from John Deeth’s write-up at Iowa Independent:

King spoke Monday on a darkened House floor, next to a giant photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the words “I am trying to save the planet” underneath.

King said Pelosi has decided that “saving the planet is worth more than saving the Homo sapiens.”

You’ll never catch Steve King trying to save the planet, that’s for sure!

By the way, Representative Tom Latham is echoing the House Republicans’ talking points on energy policy. Becky Greenwald got it just right in her response:

Greenwald suggests Latham should be embarrassed by his fellow Republicans who are staging a sort of sit-in in the U.S. House of Representatives. “I just look at it more as an election year prank and we have serious work that needs to be done and compromising and discussion that needs to happen and not be trying to pull stunts to garner attention,” Greenwald says.

Greenwald would support drilling for oil along a greater expanse of the U.S. coastline if oil companies prove they’ve fully explored the 68 million acres of ocean ground they’ve already been awarded leases to tap for oil.  “When you think about it, that’s two times the physical size of the state of Iowa and so I’d like to understand why we don’t make use of those lands and that offshore drilling that’s already available,” she says.

If she’s elected to congress, Greenwald says she’ll back greater federal support of alternative energy industries like wind energy, which she says puts Iowans to work in good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. “We absolutely need a comprehensive energy policy that’s going to take us into the next several decades,” she says. “We need to be addressing it from all angles.”

Latham went up on the radio last week with an ad touting his support for more offshore oil drilling in the U.S. His rhetoric is consistent with a new Republican strategy document calling on Congressional candidates to put energy issues front and center in their campaigns.

Let’s improve Iowa’s representation in Congress. Get involved in Hubler’s campaign or in Greenwald’s campaign if you have time or money to spare.

On Monday, Congressmen Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell announced that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will immediately release $85 million in held-up disaster aid to Iowa. Those three members of Congress wrote to HUD Secretary Steve Preston last week to request the release of funding for Community Development Block Grants.

The full text of the joint press release from those representatives is after the jump.

Apparently, Republican Tom Latham had blamed the Democratic leadership in Congress for the delay in releasing disaster aid to Iowa. Becky Greenwald’s campaign issued this statement today:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

August 5, 2008                                                                                                    515-537-4465

Latham Plays Politics with Flood Relief; Iowans Struggle to Rebuild after Floods

Waukee, IA – Congressmen Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell announced that after pressuring the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) to release crucial flood relief money to Iowa, HUD has released $85 million to help Iowa recover from flooding. (Associated Press, 8/5/08)

What has Tom Latham done to deliver flood money? Played politics as usual. He attacked Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the real delay in flood recovery was tied up in HUD and the Bush administration.

“This is completely outrageous. I’m sure if there were sewage in Tom Latham’s basement, he wouldn’t be so focused on scoring political points for the Republican Party,” said Erin Seidler, Communications Director for Becky Greenwald for Congress.  “People in Iowa are struggling to put their lives back together after the devastating floods. Tom Latham decided to play partisan politics instead of fighting to get the money back to Iowa.”

“We need an independent thinker in Washington like Becky Greenwald who won’t put politics over the needs of the people of the 4th District,” Seidler continued.

Latham doesn’t call attention to himself the way Congressman Steve King does, but he is a loyal Republican foot soldier. Residents of the fourth district deserve more effective representation.

Just in from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

On Saturday, August 2nd, Becky Greenwald and Senator Tom Harkin will be meeting with volunteers in Ames to thank them for their work to make a difference in the 4th District. The event will be at the Story County Democrats and Obama Campaign for Change office at 3:30 pm. Senator Harkin and Becky Greenwald will be available for interviews.

WHO: Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in the 4th District, Senator Tom Harkin, Volunteers

WHAT: Meet and Greet with Volunteers and Media Availability

WHERE: Office of Story County Democrats and Obama Campaign for Change

303 Welch Ave.

Ames, IA

WHEN: Saturday, August 2nd at 3:30 pm.

If anyone out there is able to attend, please post a diary afterward to tell us about it.

On August 4th and 5th, Greenwald will hold public events in Indianola, Ames, Waukee, Mason City, Iowa Falls and Fort Dodge. I’ll post more details on those events when I have them. (UPDATE: The Waukee event will be from 5:00 to 7:00 pm on Monday, August 4 in the parking lot outside the Becky Greenwald and Obama Campaign for Change Dallas County Office, 144 E. Laurel St.)

She clearly understands that Latham’s weakness is his near-total loyalty to George Bush and the Republican Party agenda:

“I am running for Congress because we need an independent thinker in Washington who will get to work to make a difference for Iowans,” said Becky Greenwald. “For too long, Tom Latham has been a wingman for George Bush and hasn’t been listening to us. I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District.”

Latham must be held accountable for marching in lockstep with the unpopular GOP leadership in Congress.

Iowa Politics has this press release from Representative Tom Latham’s campaign about

a statewide radio ad highlighting Latham’s work to lower gas and energy prices for Iowa families.

The sixty second ad reinforces Latham’s continued commitment to renewable energy but also discusses the need for Congress to work immediately to increase domestic energy supplies that America controls.

“$4.00 a gallon gas hurts Iowa families,” notes Latham in the ad. “And they’re frustrated with leaders in Congress for not doing more about it – and they have every right to be.”

“I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of alternative energy research and production, but we need to work for solutions that get Iowans from point A to point B without busting their family budget.”

Latham has been working in Congress on legislation aimed at increasing our domestic supply of affordable that will lower gas and energy prices through the increased use of our current resources, to include off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

Latham recently told Iowa Independent that Republicans can ride high gas prices to victory this November. It’s not clear to me why this is a big selling point for the GOP–shouldn’t they have been doing something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil during the years Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency?

Anyway, some Republicans clearly believe that this issue will save them from an otherwise hostile political environment. Last week John McCain started running a television ad blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling.

The rapid response from Becky Greenwald’s campaign points out the various misleading aspects of Latham’s radio ad:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

July 29, 2008                                                                                                         515-537-4465

Latham Runs Misleading Ad on Drilling To Divert From Votes Against Immediate Gas Price Relief

Waukee, IA – This week, Tom Latham’s campaign released a radio ad misleading voters about offshore drilling. Experts agree that offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices for seven to ten years, and its clear that this ad is a diversion from Latham’s votes against opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases. (McClatchy, 6/18/08)

“I’m running for Congress because of these sort of shenanigans. Latham is trying to get Iowans to think about leasing 2,000 more acres when 68 million acres already leased are open, untapped and will lower prices. Latham is trying to divert attention from his failure to support immediate relief through opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases,” said Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th District. “Is it too much to ask for leaders to be honest with us?”

Unfortunately, Latham, like George Bush decided to play politics with gas prices. Last week, he voted against a bill that would release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve to bring relief from high gas prices. This bill would bring almost immediate relief to high gas prices. (H. Res. 6578)

And two weeks ago, Latham voted against a bill to force oil companies to drill on existing leases. There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies. That is two times the size of the state of Iowa available for energy production that is now sitting idle. (H.R. 615)

Instead, Democrats in Congress and Becky Greenwald are fighting for a comprehensive energy policy that includes in the short term, opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on almost 68 million acres of existing leases.

In the long term, Becky will fight to invest in a green energy industry here in Iowa by investing in ethanol, wind energy, biodiesel, and other homegrown, alternative forms of energy.

“I know that investing in renewable fuels will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, including Iowa’s 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “It’s time for a solution, not diversion tactics.”

The bolded passages were bold in the original, by the way.

Latham’s advocacy of more oil drilling will do nothing to solve our energy problems. Even the president of the Teamsters Union, which has long supported increased oil drilling in the U.S., declared last week that

“We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Furthermore, public opinion on this matter may not be where Latham thinks it is. The polling firm Rasmussen says the public is divided on whether more drilling is the answer:

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.

A major partisan divide on the issue, like the split in Congress, is evident, however. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans say lifting the ban is the highest priority, while 59% of Democrats – and 48% of unaffiliated voters — say controlling speculators is more important. Only 29% of unaffiliateds say lift the ban first.

Unaffiliated or “no-party” voters have a slim plurality among registered voters in Iowa’s fourth district, and there are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

If Rasmussen’s findings are accurate, it seems that Latham is out of step with his district.

If you reject Latham’s misleading spin on energy policy, please donate to Greenwald’s campaign to help her respond on the air. This race will be very competitive if she can raise enough money to get her message out. Remember, the fourth district has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Final note: Latham’s press release says the radio ad is running statewide. That’s a lot more expensive than just running the ad in fourth district markets.

Is he trying to raise his profile outside his district to pave the way for a gubernatorial bid in 2010? If he loses to Greenwald, he could start campaigning for governor immediately. But even if he wins re-election, serving in Congress isn’t much fun when you’re in the minority party.  

Campaigns against incumbents are never easy, but Iowa’s fourth Congressional district is very winnable for Becky Greenwald.

When you run for office, certain things are out of your control, like the nationwide political climate or the partisan makeup of the electorate.

Greenwald is fortunate to be challenging Representative Tom Latham this year, when Democrats have their first registration edge in the fourth district since it was redrawn. According to the June 2008 numbers released by the Secretary of State’s office, the fourth district has 128,482 registered Democrats, 120,694 registered Republicans, and 145,223 voters registered with no party affiliation. Also, the national political climate is favorable to Democrats. IA-04 has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Latham told Iowa Independent that Republicans can win this year’s elections by focusing on high gas prices and the Iraq War. However, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which exists to elect Republicans to the U.S. House, has given GOP incumbents very different advice: run on personal and local issues. An NRCC strategy document notes that Republican candidates who lost special Congressional elections this year did not establish “themselves and their local brand in contrast to the negative perception of the national GOP.”

If fourth district residents let national issues guide their votes down-ticket, Greenwald will do well to keep tying Latham to the Iraq War and leadership of the Republican Party.

So what’s standing in her way? The biggest advantage of incumbency is often money, and this race is no exception.

Charlotte Eby, a commentator for the Mason City Globe-Gazette, assessed this race in a recent column:

After the record-breaking turnout at the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic Party has amassed a voter registration advantage that has grown to more than 90,000 in Iowa.

Democrats also will have presidential candidate Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin at the top of the ticket to help drive turnout. […]

Latham’s had strong Democratic challengers in the past that he’s been able to fend off. But his district, which includes Mason City, Ames and suburban counties surrounding Des Moines, has become more of a swing district as Democratic registration has swelled. Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the district for the first time ever.

Watch for Greenwald’s campaign to paint Latham as a Republican in lockstep with Bush administration policies, a record that might not be popular with the changing electorate.

First though, Greenwald will have to raise enough money to compete with Latham’s war chest, which sat at more than $700,000 as of the last filing period.

If Greenwald is competitive in raising money, the 4th District race could be the race to watch this fall.

David Yepsen’s latest column in the Des Moines Register reaches the same conclusion:

The key for Democrat Greenwald, a 55-year-old former Garst and Pioneer marketing executive from Perry, is money. Will national Democratic money sources – especially Emily’s List – pour dollars into her contest with Latham?

To get them to make that investment, Greenwald must first convince them she’s viable and has got a credible financial base of her own.

So far, it’s been an uphill task. According to the latest campaign-finance disclosure reports, Greenwald had only $81,800 in the bank on June 30. Latham had 10 times that amount: $832,388. Greenwald had to get through a four-way primary in June, then had to suspend fundraising in Iowa during the floods. Donors in the Democratic money centers of Des Moines, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids were preoccupied.

Raising money isn’t the easiest task in the world, but candidates have more control over fundraising than they do over massive shifts toward the other party on various issues and among many different demographic groups.

Rarely can a challenger raise enough cash to match the incumbent’s spending dollar for dollar. But when the wind is at your back, that often isn’t necessary.

Upsets happen in big landslide years. Just look at what happened to Neal Smith, who had represented Iowa’s fourth district since 1958 until Greg Ganske brought him down in the 1994 Republican landslide. Smith had more seniority and clout in 1994 than Latham has now. I couldn’t find information about the candidates’ spending in that race, because the Open Secrets database doesn’t go back that far. But I’ll bet that Ganske did not win by raising more money than Smith. Ganske was boosted by a national Republican wave and partisan shifts following the 1990 census and redistricting.

Greenwald has a big cash-on-hand disadvantage now, but her campaign has been working hard to raise money in July. I’ve received e-mails from personal friends asking me to donate, as well as two letters from the campaign (one signed by Tom Harkin, Leonard Boswell and Bruce Braley, the other signed by Tom and Christie Vilsack).

I’ve already given to her campaign, but my husband and I are digging deeper to donate again this month.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has not reserved any air time in Iowa yet, but they are watching this race, as is EMILY’s list, which seeks to elect pro-choice, Democratic women at all levels of government.

I expect one or both of those groups to get involved in the IA-04 race, assuming Greenwald produces strong numbers this month. The Des Moines and Mason City media markets are not that expensive, compared to districts where many other challengers need to purchase paid media.

The infrastructure will be there to support heavy Democratic turnout in this district. Barack Obama’s campaign has already opened four field offices in IA-04, with a fifth office planned.

Also, the fourth district has been receptive to strong Democratic candidates in recent years. Speaking to Iowa Independent two weeks ago, Greenwald made this point:

“This is not a campaign that was launched on a whim,” she said. “This is not just a campaign that’s based on hope that I’ll do well. Sen. Harkin won 28 of the 28 counties in the 4th District in 2002. The 4th District is the only district in Iowa in which he carried every single county. Gov. Culver, when he ran in 2006, carried 22 of the 28 counties in the 4th District.”

Please donate to Greenwald’s campaign before the end of July.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize Karl Rove was coming to Des Moines today to raise money for Latham. A press release from Greenwald’s campaign is after the jump. Also, you can view this YouTube she taped in response to Rove’s visit:

I love how Greenwald referred to Rove in this clip: “Today, Karl Rove, the man who is too busy to even testify before Congress, is going to be in Iowa raising money for Tom Latham.”

On Tuesday the House overrode George Bush’s veto of a bill that stopped planned cuts in the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors. It’s the fourth time Congress has voted to override Bush’s vetoes. This is the bill that just barely cleared the Senate because of Ted Kennedy’s return.

This diary by noweasels has the story and links to the roll-call votes, along with a lot of comments about how this law will affect people. TomP has some background on Medicare and how it was adopted.

The House vote was 383-41. In the Iowa delegation, Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Tom Latham voted yes on the override. Steve King voted no. Leonard Boswell was among the 11 representatives who missed the vote.

The Senate vote was 70-26, with Tom Harkin voting yes and Chuck Grassley voting no. Barack Obama and John McCain were among the four senators who missed the vote.

Late last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of releasing detailed information about where they plan to spend $34 million on television advertising this fall. Click the link to read how much the DCCC says it will spend in each of 31 districts, only 12 of which are currently held by Democrats.

As you can see from the comment thread under this post at Swing State Project, a lot of people are unhappy about winnable seats left off this list. What about netroots hero Darcy Burner, who fell just short in Washington’s eighth district in 2006? Shouldn’t Dan Seals get some help in Illinois’s tenth? Are we really going to give “Mean Jean” Schmidt a pass in Ohio’s second?

I was disappointed not to see Iowa’s fourth district listed. Most of its 28 counties are covered by Des Moines or Mason City television, which is not that expensive. But keep in mind that this is just time reserved by the DCCC, and it could change if the situation on the ground changes.

If some of the Democratic districts targeted now appear safe by September or October, the DCCC could shift money elsewhere.

I also think Todd Beeton is right to note that

There are plenty more GOP seats that should be on this list, CA-04 and WA-08 come immediately to mind. I look forward to seeing more seats added to this list as we get closer to November. What should be remembered is that this list is simply what the DCCC was comfortable making public and putting the GOP on notice.

It’s up to us Iowans to give Becky Greenwald a boost against Tom Latham in the D+0 fourth district. We already have a registration advantage in the district. We need to help Greenwald raise money and generate excitement around the race. When the DCCC reassesses the field later this year, it won’t be too late to get involved.

Clearly, the DCCC is not going to spend much money supporting Rob Hubler in Iowa’s fifth district, but we should keep our focus on that race too. It’s a terrible district to cover with television commercials, because the 32 counties are located in so many different media markets. But we can still give our time and money to Hubler’s campaign. King is an embarrassment, and he will get little top-of-the-ticket help from John McCain, who has no organization in Iowa.

The fifth is the most Republican district in Iowa with a partisan index of R+8, but we just won Mississippi’s first Congressional district, which tilts even more strongly to the GOP. The Storm Lake Times thinks that King may be vulnerable given the current political environment.

UPDATE: DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff issued the following statement on the ad buy:

“Our initial media buy is the first act of a many act play.  As we have been all cycle, the DCCC is focused, prepared, and organized.  Watch what we do over the next four months and our aggressive strategy to expand the playing field and strengthen the Democratic Majority will become clear.”

Republican Tom Latham is a shadowy figure, no one really seems to know who he is or how he votes. So I thought I would share with you how some bipartisan agencies have rated Congressman Tom Latham

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance

Rated 31% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance

Rated 10% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes

Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes

Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record

Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record

 As scary as this is, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

More to follow…

I was glad to see this press release a few days ago from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Erin Seidler

July 2, 2008                                                                                                        515-537-4465

Tom Latham’s Other ‘Milestones’ In Congress

Des Moines – Tom Latham announced today that he has held 450 town hall meetings since taking office. The Greenwald for Congress campaign thought this was a good opportunity to discuss Tom Latham’s other “milestones” since taking office in 1995.

7             The number of times Tom Latham has voted to continue the Iraq War, even as recently as June 19th.

92            The percentage of Tom Latham’s votes cast in Congress that were following the Republican Party line. That is even higher than Steve King.

507          Amount, in millions, for veteran’s healthcare that Tom Latham voted against in 2006 in favor of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars per year. (HR 5385)

“Looking at the numbers, Tom Latham isn’t listening to the people of the 4th District at his town hall meetings,” said Erin Seidler, Communications Director. “It’s time to make a difference in the 4th District and elect Becky Greenwald for Congress. “

The National Republican Congressional Committee is advising Republican candidates “to establish themselves in a personal manner, emphasizing local issues whenever possible.” A recent strategy document warns against nationalizing the Congressional races in light of the GOP’s very unpopular national brand.

It’s no surprise that Latham would brag about his town-hall meetings. He has every reason to go by the new GOP playbook in his swing district where Democrats have made huge gains in voter registration and now slightly outnumber Republicans.

Remember, Democratic candidates have won special elections this year in Republican-leaning Congressional districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi.

If I were Greenwald, I would remind fourth district voters every day that on Iraq and many other issues, Latham has continually marched in lockstep with President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress.

The Cook Political Report recently changed its rating for Iowa’s fourth district from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”

Don’t be surprised if it gets upgraded to “Lean Republican” before too long.

Greenwald is working hard. She participated in three Fourth of July parades yesterday (in Clear Lake, Waukee and Iowa Falls) and is raising a lot of money. She has another big fundraiser coming up in Des Moines on July 10, by the way–for details, call 515-564-3883. The more local contributions she receives, the better the chance that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and EMILY’s List will fully commit to this race.

I received a fundraising letter from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign recently. It contained a healthy dose of the misleading spin I have come to expect from Boswell’s mailings this year.

I’m not going to retype the whole text, but this passage made me laugh (emphasis is in the original):

My republican opponent has had four months to raise money and plan for the general election; an election that I am only able to focus my attention on now. While I was competing against an opponent for the Democratic nomination, the republicans were getting ready to once again challenge us in this competitive district. This time they have the advantage of a large head start.

Get real. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of 2008 targets.

CQ Politics has rated IA-03 “safe Democrat”, in part because the Republicans are not targeting the seat.

The latest Cook Political Report of competitive U.S. House races makes no mention of IA-03, which means that seat is considered safe for the incumbent.

Similarly, IA-03 is nowhere to be found on Swing State Project’s list of competitive U.S. House races.

What about that big “head start” the Republicans supposedly got while Boswell was facing a primary challenge? The most recent Federal Election Commission reporting, based on the May 14, 2008 filings, show that Boswell had raised about $1.16 million this election cycle and had about $709,000 cash on hand.

Republican candidate Kim Schmett had raised about $54,500 so far this year and had just under $33,300 cash on hand.

Let Red Brannan and the others who funded the smear campaign against Ed Fallon replenish Boswell’s campaign coffers.

Democrats in the third district should vote for Boswell in November, but don’t be a sucker–plenty of other Democratic candidates need and deserve your donations more.

Speaking of which, I have given Becky Greenwald $100. Go here if you would like to contribute to her campaign. A strong fundraising number at the end of the second quarter would give her a boost against Tom Latham.

UPDATE: Another worthy candidate is Iowa native Heather Ryan, who is running against a horrible incumbent Republican in Kentucky’s first district. RDemocrat’s latest post on that race is here.

The Des Moines Register covered William Meyers’ decision to run for Congress as an independent in the fourth district.

Then the Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus gave him the boot.

This is just one example of how not getting behind our nominee has in my opinion irreparably harmed Meyers’ political career.

We all make mistakes, but it’s not every day that someone makes an move which will haunt him for his entire career.

William Meyers confirmed in an interview with Iowa Independent that he plans to run for Congress as an independent. He came in third in Tuesday’s primary in the fourth district with about 13 percent of the vote.

His campaign website has already been reconfigured to promote him as an “independent voice for Iowa”:

The fight isn’t over! A choice between Greenwald and Latham will once again leave the majority of 4th district residents without a voice in Washington, D.C.

The time is long overdue that WE, the majority, have someone just like us representing our best interests instead of the special interests.

Join me after the jump for my take on why this candidacy won’t help anyone, least of all William Meyers.

This is just for fun.

For the first time ever, Republicans are not putting a lot of resources into challenging Senator Tom Harkin. Unless a recount changes the outcome of the GOP primary, Harkin will face little-known Marion businessman Christopher Reed, who has not even raised enough money to file an FEC report. Harkin has more than $3 million to spend on this race. More on Reed here:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

The Real Sporer thinks the GOP Senate nomination could still go to a state convention, if recounts and challenges push Reed’s percentage of the vote below 35 percent. He won with about 35.3 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

Congressman Bruce Braley will face State Senator Dave Hartsuch in Iowa’s first district. Hartsuch has raised less than $6,000 for his campaign, according to the latest FEC report.

Congressman Dave Loebsack will probably face Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the second district, unless a recount overturns her 109-vote victory in the primary:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

There may be lasting hard feelings among the Republicans in that district, considering the hard-fought primary and Peter Teahen’s very narrow loss.

Congressman Leonard Boswell will face Republican Kim Schmett in the third district. Schmett has raised about $54,000 so far, according to FEC filings.

Congressman Tom Latham will face Becky Greenwald in the fourth district. She had raised about $56,000 as of the last FEC filing. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted this district in its “red to blue” program. Count on pretty much every major Democratic donor in Iowa to contribute to Greenwald too, with Harkin and Boswell presumably out of danger now. EMILY’s list may also get involved on Greenwald’s behalf.

Congressman Steve King will face Rob Hubler in the fifth district. Hubler has raised over $100,000 for this race, but it’s a steep uphill climb for any Democrat in this district.

Take the poll after the jump: which of these incumbents will win in November with the largest share of the vote?

Now that we have a nominee there are many things that we can do here in the fourth to help her win the election in November

One that I would like to highlight is absentee voting

It is quite simple

Step one: Go to this site:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/PDFS/AbsenteeBallotApp.pdf

Step Two: Print off request forms

Step Three: send your own in and pass them out to others.

Step Four: Make sure the people you hand them out to send them in 🙂

Step Five: Recieve your ballot and fill it out, than send in or return to your local county office!

We can really pick up some steam by getting a margin in the absentees! Plus it helps all democrats!

Thanks

Adam

It is extremely exciting to have four great candidates in the district this year who are talking about the issues that are important to me and to my fellow Iowans.  Each has received endorsements from different groups with strong opinions on these issues, and it’s great to see these groups taking such an active role in the process.  

I expect that the turnout in our primary may be higher than it’s been in years, and that we can finally start reversing the damage the current administration and our current representative have done to our country, while carrying our nation forward in the future.  Therefore, I believe that we need a nominee who can carry that energy and that momentum forward into November and beyond, and I believe that nominee should be Kurt Meyer.

<!–StartFragment–>

Six months ago I made my first official contact with each and every Democratic County Chair, introducing myself, and my candidacy for the United States House of Representatives.  Six months later, Chairpersons in key counties still deny me access to their Democrats.  I have asked multiple times, and even done so in my email newsletters, viewed by thousands of Democrats in the fourth district.  Additionally,  my email news program allows me to track who opens the emails, the date and time they opened them, links they may have clicked on, and who they may have forwarded the emails to.

<!–EndFragment–>

I have obtained a direct-mail piece that Becky Greenwald’s campaign has sent out before the June 3 primary in the fourth Congressional district. I don’t know how large a universe received this mailer–whether it was just Democrats who are reliable voters, all Democrats, or also included voters not registered as Democrats.

I’ve described the visuals of the mailer and transcribed the text after the jump. It’s an interesting combination of the personal and the political, with the look of a family scrapbook.

I hope that Bleeding Heartland readers in the fourth district will tell us about any other direct-mail pieces or door-hangers you have received from Democrats hoping to take on Latham.

If you scan the images into a diary, or transcribe the text and describe the visuals, I will promote your diary to the front page.

Join me after the jump for more on “The Girl Next Door.”

Come on, Tom Latham, you know you want to retire. It’s not fun being in the minority party, is it? And from the looks of things, Republicans will be in the minority for a long, long time.

Yesterday Don Cazayoux narrowly won a special election in Louisiana’s sixth Congressional district. That district has a partisan index of R+7, meaning that it votes about 7 percent more Republican than the national average. The GOP should have no trouble holding a seat in that kind of district.

Jonathan Singer put up a good post on what this means at MyDD. I liked this part:

The attacks linking Cazayoux to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama didn’t work. They simply didn’t. Yes, the Republicans pulled in more votes and a greater share of the vote than they did last month in the first round of balloting. So what. This is a very Republican district and yet despite of this lean and the fact that the GOP tried to make this election about Jeremiah Wright, they still lost.

This race was very much put forward by the chattering class as a referendum on Obama’s coattails (which proved to be strong in the very Republican-leaning Illinois 14th congressional district earlier this year), and Obama’s coattails passed the challenge. Simply put, the Republicans may have thought they had found a silver bullet in Obama and Wright (and Pelosi, too, for that matter), but they didn’t.

Markos keeps his post-election thoughts short and simple:

Tonight’s results will get picked apart for analysis by lots of people in the coming days. But in short, it will become obvious that Cazayoux’s margin of victory came from black votes — you disrespect that community at your own peril. And second of all, Republicans once again failed, in a blood red district, to scare voters into submission by running scary ads against scaaaary national Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

Voters, even in solidly conservative districts, are simply not that scared of Democrats anymore. It’s Bush they’re terrified of.

One last thought — Democrats now have a 235-199 advantage in the U.S. House. They started the cycle 233-202.

While I remain concerned about the possibility that John McCain could be the next president, it looks like this will be a banner year for the Democrats in the Congressional races.

By the way, if the Republicans can’t hold a seat with a partisan index of R+7, I don’t think we need to worry about Iowa’s third Congressional district, which is D+1.

UPDATE: Comedy gold, as Republicans try to spin this outcome as “a warning shot to Democrats”:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

I learned from the Iowa Voters blog that Steve King (IA-05) and Tom Latham (IA-04) were among the 85 percent of Republicans in the U.S. House who voted against New Jersey Democrat Rush Holt’s bill encouraging verifiable elections on Tuesday.

For details on the bill, click here. Here’s the gist:

H.R. 5036, as reported to the floor by the committee, would authorize funding to reimburse states with paperless jurisdictions that convert to paper-based voting systems in 2008 or provide emergency paper ballots that would be counted as regular ballots in the event of machine failure. The reimbursements would cover the cost of equipment conversion (from paperless touch screen machines to paper-based systems, such as optical scanners or computers with printers) and the cost of developing procedures for conducting hand-counted audits using independent, random selection of at least 2 percent of the precincts for audits under public observation.

Holt noted that two weeks ago, the House Administration Committee unanimously approved this bill. However, after the White House came out against the bill, 176 out of 203 Republicans fell in line.

At his blog, IowaVoter pointed out that the bill King and Latham voted against would have “re-imbursed Iowa for the expense of replacing our touchscreens.” (Two weeks ago Governor Chet Culver signed a law requiring all Iowa counties to use optical scanners and paper ballots.)

But no, King and Latham would rather rubber-stamp the Bush administration’s opposition to a bill that was voted unanimously out of committee.  

A few days ago, Des Moines Register reporter Jane Norman wrote a story about earmarks Iowa’s members of Congress obtained for projects in 2007. The article was based on the 2008 “Congressional Pig Book,” published by Citizens against Government Waste.

The Register notes:

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that takes aim at waste and fraud in government.

To qualify as pork, projects must meet one of seven criteria: a request by just one member of Congress; no specific authorization; no competitive award; no presidential request; a greatly increased budget amount compared with the previous year; serving only a local or special interest; or no congressional hearing.

Norman’s main point was that Iowa’s members of Congress obtained far more earmarks in 2007 than they had the previous year, totaling

$184.6 million in earmarks, or $61.79 in Iowa pork for every man, woman and child in the state.

It’s a major rebound for Iowa, which languished in 37th place in a similar study in 2006. That year, lawmakers obtained $72.2 million in earmarks, or $24.34 per Iowan.

(Note: Earlier this year, the group Taxpayers for Common Sense did its own analysis and came up with somewhat different numbers for 2007: the Iowa delegation was calculated to have obtained about “$152 million in earmarked money from Congress – or $51.10 for every man, woman and child in the state.”)

Norman noted that since Democrats took control of Congress in he 2006 elections, Senator Tom Harkin now chairs a “key appropriations subcommittee.” The “Congressional Pig Book” apparently singled him out for getting “$40 million for 44 projects in his own bill,” according to Norman.

I don’t know why the authors would single out Harkin, when their own book shows that Senator Chuck Grassley obtained more pork for Iowa in terms of total dollar value. Grassley collaborated with Harkin on a large number of earmarks for Iowa projects.

I also get a little tired of self-appointed taxpayer watchdogs expressing righteous indignation about this or that project that got a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government. The Pig Book shows that the more than 11,000 earmarks in 2007 accounted for about $17.2 billion in federal spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. spent several times that amount on the continuing war in Iraq in 2007, with little to show for it besides more American casualties.

That said, there’s no doubt that a lot of earmarks are wasteful appropriations for projects of limited benefit to the broader community. The Pig Book contains a ton of information about the earmarks each member of Congress has obtained. You can search all the Iowa earmarks from 2007 on this page of the Des Moines Register’s website, or search for earmarks by any member of Congress at the Citizens Against Government Waste site.

I used that search engine to find the total number of earmarks that each Iowa member of Congress obtained last year. The total dollar amount for each member comes from a table published in the Des Moines Register on April 3 (no link, because I could only find this table in the print version). Note that not every dollar earmarked by an Iowan ends up in Iowa, because some of these projects operate in many states.

Chuck Grassley (R), 155 earmarks, $321.4 million

Tom Harkin (D), 194 earmarks, $302.8 million

Tom Latham (R, IA-04), 63 earmarks, $67 million

Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), 27 earmarks, $53.5 million

Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), 27 earmarks, $33.1 million

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), 26 earmarks, $27.5 million

Steve King (R, IA-05), 13 earmarks, $9.8 million

Why does Latham, a Republican, lead our House delegation in terms of earmarks? He is the longest-serving Iowan in the House (having been first elected in 1994) and serves on several subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee. Also, his district includes Iowa State University, and a lot of federal funding goes to major research universities.

The data for the Democrats surprised me. How did the freshman Dave Loebsack secure so much more than Leonard Boswell? At first I thought it must be because Loebsack’s district includes the University of Iowa, but only two of Loebsack’s 27 earmarks were for the university.

Looking down the list more carefully, I realized that the dollar amount credited to Loebsack is inflated because he was one of 13 House members to earmark $24 million for the Department of Education’s National Writing Project. Most of that money will not go to Iowa.

Even if we remove that one from Loebsack’s list, he is still left with 26 earmarks (almost as many as Boswell), totaling $29.5 million (almost as much as Boswell). Keep in mind that Loebsack is only halfway through his first term, while Boswell was elected to Congress in 1996.

Braley is not far behind, despite being a freshman as well.

It’s no surprise that King is at the bottom of the list. Not only is he a Republican in a Democratic-controlled chamber, his idea of constituent service seems to revolve around making outrageous statements. Oh, and also suing to prevent non-native English speakers from receiving voter information in other languages. He has no major universities in his district either.

If you dig around in the database and find anything particularly noteworthy, please put a comment in this thread.

As I’ve noted recently, the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district has taken a strange turn, whereby the incumbent seems to be trying to make the race primarily about the challenger’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

I’ve been too busy in non-blog life to write up the day to day sparring following a recent e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign, which attacked Ed Fallon on several fronts.

The criticism of Fallon by Boswell’s surrogates and supporters has focused on four issues in particular:

1. alleged ethical questions related to Fallon’s work for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

I will cover each of those issues in a separate diary, because I don’t have time to write about all of them at once. Today, I will address the allegations related to I’M for Iowa.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent published a piece on March 20 called “Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions.” Martyn raised questions about I’M for Iowa’s ability to collect unlimited donations without disclosing the sources:

Although I’M For Iowa participates in political advocacy and relies on contributions to stay afloat, its financial status does not fit the typical mold for this type of organization. Rather than registering it as a nonprofit organization with the Internal Revenue Service under sections 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 527, Fallon runs the organization as a for-profit general partnership, making its tax status no different from most home businesses. He and his current campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, co-own the business.

But there is a difference between I’M For Iowa and most typical businesses: Rather than sell products and services to customers, it accepts donations for its political advocacy work. While the donations are not tax-deductible, the business can accept unlimited amounts of money. And because of its tax status, it is not required to disclose information about its sources of funding.

Martyn also noted that two e-mails sent to I’M for Iowa’s distribution list appeared to have promoted Fallon’s Congressional campaign:

On Feb. 29 an e-mail Fallon wrote to his I’M For Iowa group invited readers to visit his campaign Web site and participate in campaign activities to coincide with his 50th birthday. And on Jan. 12 he sent an I’M For Iowa e-mail announcing his candidacy for Congress and providing a lengthy critique of his primary opponent’s voting record.

The result is a complicated question involving the nuances of campaign finance law. Can an unincorporated business accept unlimited contributions without the requirement to disclose its contributors and then use contributed funds to promote a congressional campaign?

Martyn suggested that even if no laws were broken, the questions could hurt Fallon’s image, since he has been a strong advocate of clean-elections laws (such as the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns).

The Des Moines Register didn’t follow up on the Iowa Independent story until after the Boswell campaign drew attention to it a week later. Thomas Beaumont examined various questions related to I’M for Iowa in the Register on March 29:

The organization is a trade name registered with the Polk County recorder. Small businesses such as lawn care services and other sole proprietorships register this way.

However, some other advocacy organizations, such as the 15-year-old, Des Moines-based State Public Policy Group, is also registered the same way as Fallon’s group.

I’M for Iowa is not a corporation, over which the Iowa secretary of state has regulatory authority.

Fallon’s group does not have to report its sources of money or what kind of business it is. But it receives no money from corporations, said Lynn Heuss, Fallon’s partner in the organization.

It runs on contributions from individuals who support its agenda, which includes limiting large livestock confinements, curbing global warming, promoting campaign finance reform and preventing abuse of eminent domain.

It seems clear that there is no legal barrier to using the I’M for Iowa e-mail list to promote Fallon’s Congressional campaign.

Martyn wrote in Iowa Independent:

A representative of the Federal Elections Commission would not comment on any matters that regulators may have to rule on, but FEC regulations do not seem to explicitly prohibit coordination between a campaign and an unincorporated business entity owned by a candidate.

Beaumont’s March 29 article for the Register notes that

Campaign finance law bars corporate contributions from federal races. However, the law specifies corporations and limited liability companies, which Fallon’s group is not.

According to a press release from Fallon’s campaign on April 2, the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.” The full text of that release is after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

Fallon campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, provided the rules the campaign reviewed with the FEC Information Officer: From the FEC Candidate Guide, Chapter 4, Section 10, “Partnerships are permitted to make contributions according to special rules. 110.1(e) and (k)(1). For further details, see Appendix B.”

In addition, Chapter 4, Section 12 of the FEC Candidate’s Guide says, “When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. 110.10; AOs 1991-9, 1990-9, 1985-33 and 1985-60. They must, however, be reported (as discussed below).” And a little further down under “Definition of a Candidate’s “Personal Funds” it says, “The personal funds of a candidate include: Assets which the candidate has a legal right of access to or control over, and which he or she has legal title to or an equitable interest in, at the time of candidacy; income from employment; ….”

Heuss clarified the only contribution the business has made is sending out two email messages, which constitute an in-kind donation, and is not in violation of FEC regulation.

(UPDATE: Chase Martyn reported on April 3 that the FEC denied making “any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign”. Martyn added that Iowa Independent had merely questioned the ethics of how I’M for Iowa was used and not alleged that any laws were broken.)

If no laws were broken, what is the problem? The Boswell campaign has tried to suggest that there is something underhanded about I’M for Iowa. From the Register’s March 29 article:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

Although I’ve donated to Fallon’s gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns, I have never contributed money to I’M for Iowa. As a result, I haven’t followed the organization’s work very closely.

But if individuals want to give money to help Fallon advocate for clean elections, or organize opposition to coal-fired power plants and CAFOs, what is the problem?  

Non-profit organizations are unable or unwilling to take a position on some kinds of political disputes, so there is a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa.

Does the Boswell campaign mean to suggest that advocacy work is not a real job? That seems strange. Barack Obama’s supporters and television commercials have praised that candidate for working as a community organizer after finishing law school.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised the Boswell campaign wants to go down this road, since Boswell’s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate PACs in 2007 alone. I’m supposed to be concerned about the hidden agenda of individuals who have contributed to I’M for Iowa?

Asked to comment in the Register article of March 29, Fallon characterized the allegations as typical establishment politics:

“The political establishment attacks a candidate on his strength,” Fallon said. “My strength is my commitment to issues. They are looking for ways to discredit me.”

Fallon’s campaign addressed the controversy in more detail in statements released on March 31 and April 2. The full text of those press releases are after the jump.

Typically, a challenger needs to run a somewhat negative campaign in order to convince voters to reject the incumbent. The incumbent normally is content to ignore the challenger and run on his or her record of service.

In Iowa’s third Congressional district, a strange role reversal is underway, in which Ed Fallon is calling on Leonard Boswell’s campaign to “stop the negative attacks.”

Last week I posted the text of an e-mail from Boswell, which charged that Fallon is “no Democrat” and “has never acted in the best interest of our party.”

On March 24, Fallon issued a press release and a letter to his supporters responding to the attacks from the Boswell camp. It once again addresses Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000, and also responds to claims that Fallon’s work for I’M for Iowa has run afoul of ethical or campaign finance rules.

I am working on another post about the financing of the Boswell and Fallon campaigns, and will write more about allegations surrounding Fallon and I’M for Iowa in the near future.

For now, I will note that the Boswell campaign probably would not have stepped up the attacks on Fallon in March if their internal polling and voter contacts were encouraging. (I got a call from a field organizer for Boswell during the first week of March, and my husband got a call from an organizer for Boswell this past week.)

An incumbent who is not worried doesn’t go after a challenger this way two months before the primary.

When the first public poll of this race is released, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fallon within striking distance of Boswell.

The full text of Fallon’s press release of March 24 is after the jump.

The Center for Responsive Politics has ranked the U.S. House and Senate members in terms of their net worth, based on disclosure documents filed in 2007. Jane Norman has the highlights in the Des Moines Register.

Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, and Tom Latham are the only members of Congress from Iowa who disclosed a net worth greater than $1 million. Click the link for more details.

The topic of earmarks is one that has been frquently chatted about on many of the Republican blog posts. I hear a lot of Democrat so and so did this and Liberal So and So did that, so I thought I should share a few facts about Pork Barrel Spending and our Representatives here in Iowa.

Fact 1: The leader among senators in earmarks?

Republican Thad Cochran Mississippi, with $837,000,000+!!!!!!

Fact: 2: The leader among Senators in Iowa?

Republican Chuck Grassley with  $323,000,000+!!!

 Fact 3: The Leader among Iowa congressmen?

Republican Tom Latham with $69,000,000+!!!

Fact 4: Notable Legislatures that have less ear marks than Latham's 63

Democratic Sen. Obama 55

Democratic Sen. Feingold 0

Democratic Sen. McCaskill 0

Democratic Rep. Boswell (IA) 26

Democratic Rep. Braley (IA) 27

Democratic Rep. Loebsack (IA) 25

Here is to hoping Latham's hypocrasy doesnt go unnoticed.

Happy Easter!

I received an e-mail from Kurt Meyer’s campaign in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and it mentioned that incumbent Tom Latham is one of the Republicans being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I hadn’t realized that the DCCC planned to put resources into flipping that seat. It will be an uphill battle, but if the climate is right for Democratic candidates nationwide and in Iowa, it should be within reach.

I am staying out of the primary battle in IA-04, but I plan to donate $100 to the campaign of the winner of that primary. I would love to see that district turn blue.

While digging around on the DCCC’s website for more information, I noticed that they have also named Leonard Boswell as one of 29 “frontline Democrats.” I do not know whether that means the DCCC will put resources into the primary race in IA-03.

Here is the ActBlue page the DCCC set up for all of its “frontline Democrats”:

http://www.actblue.com/page/fr…

Here is a map you can use to find all of the districts the DCCC is targeting this year, either for pickups or defense:

http://dccc.org/page/content/r…

UPDATE: brownsox analyzes the list at Daily Kos and says the DCCC is targeting 59 Republican-held seats for pickups and 31 Democratic seats for defense:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Slowly but steadily we’re opening our central campaign office, located at 600 5^th Street in Ames.  For those involved in Dr. Spencer’s campaign in 2006, it’s the same office suite.  I use the word “slowly” to acknowledge that creating the necessary office infrastructure – such mundane but essential matters as desks and chairs, working space and storage space, networks and systems – requires time and patience.  Often, the press of schedules, deadlines, and emerging priorities intervenes and interrupts efforts that might otherwise be directed to settling in.  The good news:  we now have an office and it’s opening up deliberately…  like a flower.  Soon we’ll be in full bloom.  And, yes, we’ll schedule an open house and invite everyone to stop by and say hello.

Mention of infrastructure reminds me of the need for Washington leadership to ensure that our country is making wise, long-term investments in the infrastructure required for life in the 21^st century… roads and bridges, of course, but also an electricity transmission grid and a high-speed Internet infrastructure to ensure modern telecommunication benefits for Iowans.

Consider this a general discussion of possibile Dem challengers for Tom Latham in the upcoming general.

My sources in Story County have told me that State Senator Rich Olive has suddenly quit his job in insurance and hasn't given any reasos for departure.  It would make some amount of sense that Rich, whom is popular in Story County, could be recruited to run against Latham even though he's only in his first term.

If Olive has actually beeen recruited, it leads me to believe that the State Democratic Party believes that semi-moderate party line Republicans could be easier targets in the upcoming election.

I thought with this year winding down, I'd make some predictions for the year ahead before the caucus craziness got any more out-of-hand. These are just my gut feeling on things, so don't take it too seriously.

1. The Iowa Caucus will show less than 5% difference between the top three Democrat candidates.   

    Everything I know tells me that this is going to be an incredibly close race. For one, I think John Edwards is being under-represented in the polls, due to his strength in the rural counties. Therefore, the caucus can go to any of the top three at this point. I predict the top three candidates will garner between 75-80% of the total, with no more than 5% difference between first and third. 

2. Mike Huckabee will decisively win the Iowa Caucus   

    Everything suggests that nothing can stop the Huck truck at this point. All these past, uh, we'll call them “opinions”, haven't stuck to him in a way that will turn off significant numbers of Iowa caucusgoers. He'll win, and win big.

3. Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate.

    Ron Paul will have a strong showing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide. Not strong enough to win any individual state, let alone the nomination, but it will show that there is a big support base for him. I can't say whether he'll sign on with an established third party or start his own, but he will definitely continue the race.

4. Democrats will have solid gains in the House and Senate.

    This one's a gimme. I'm going to say we pick up 4 in the Senate and 6 in the House. Not an Earth-shaking realignment, but solid gains nonetheless.

5. Mike Bloomberg will not run for President.

    Through some backroom dealings, Mike Bloomberg will find himself dissuaded of any notion to run for President in 2008. As a result of this, I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up in some shape or form down the line in the form of a cabinet nomination or ambassadorship, no matter which party wins.

I received this correspondence today from a soldier I met through myspace who is currently in Iraq.  Please feel free to repost and use.

The Washingtonian has an interesting article written by Kim Eisler about his old friend Jack Abramoff, with a lot of interesting inside information and quotes from the convicted felon:

Of Iowa senator Charles Grassley, chair of the Senate Finance committee, who had been critical of Abramoff, Jack said: “You can say you have a good source that Grassley not only carried my water on the Bear Council issue [a fight over tribal recognition in Grassley’s state] and received a ton of contributions in return, but he also did one of the biggest asks from Abramoff ever, taking Tyco out of the tax bill. . . . They would have been hit with a $4-billion tax bill.”

Last year, the Sioux City Journal reported that Senator “Aw Shucks” and the rest of the Republican delegation were tied in well with Abramoff:

According to Federal Elections Commission documents, Grassley received a $1,000 campaign contribution from Abramoff in March 2003.

Abramoff also gave $5,000 to the Hawkeye PAC, which Grassley uses to raise money for other House and Senate candidates.

The Meskwaki, Choctaw and Saginaw Chippewa tribes gave $13,000. Another $3,500 came from co-workers at Abramoff’s lobbying firm.

Recipients of Hawkeye PAC funds included Reps. Nussle, Tom Latham and Steve King, who got $10,000 each in 2004.

Des Moines lawyer Stan Thompson, who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, for a second time in 2004, received $15,000 from the PAC.

Latham gave the $1000 he received directly from Abramoff to charity (whatever that means), but Grassley stubbornly refused.

Do you think the Iowa press will follow up on this story? I don’t either. But it would be nice if some embarrassment in the press and the prospect of riding out the rest of his career in the minority would encourage Grassley to hang it up in 2010. I would love to see him hop on his lawn movers and head west, back home, into the sunset.