Bleeding Heartland - Family Leader

Sixteen Iowa lawmakers issue dumbest ultimatum ever

desmoinesdem — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:45:00 GMT

The FAMiLY Leader's strange obsession with the Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth is well-established. Last year, the socially conservative organization led by Bob Vander Plaats was so focused on getting Governor Terry Branstad to drop his affiliation with this conference that they were too "busy" to protest as the governor wined and dined the future Communist ruler of China (world leader in coerced abortions).

The FAMiLY Leader was at it again last week, throwing a fit over the 8th Annual Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth scheduled for April 3. For this post, I don't want to focus on the "ludicrous" concerns raised by people like Chuck Hurley ("Stop coming after my kids and other people's kids with evil propaganda"). I don't want to focus on how Branstad "ducked rather than draw fire from name-callers" with this weak response to the controversy.

Today I'm more interested in sixteen Republican lawmakers who showed their solidarity with the FAMiLY Leader by making an idiotic promise they can't possibly keep.
On March 28, the FAMiLY Leader held a press conference to condemn the LGBT event organized annually by Iowa Safe Schools. Speakers included some conservative pastors and Republican National Committeewoman Tamara Scott (there in her capacity as director of Concerned Women for America of Iowa, not as a Republican Party official). Some of the clergymen asserted that the governor's conference promotes homosexuality and sin. Scott asserted that people of faith are more persecuted in schools than LGBTQ youth.

In a statement distributed to reporters last Thursday, sixteen Iowa lawmakers focused on one of the many conference sponsors: the Des Moines Area Community College Diversity Commission. Jennifer Jacobs published this document on the Des Moines Register's blog.

STATEMENT BY IOWA SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES ON TAX PAYER FUNDS BEING USED BY DMACC TO SPONSOR THE GOVERNORS LGBTQ YOUTH CONFERENCE
Based on our desire and commitment to be faithful stewards of our tax dollars, we cannot in good conscience vote to give taxpayer dollars to people or groups who pervert the Bible, teach our youth to engage in dangerous behavior, and target individuals like [conservative WHO talk radio host] Jan Mickelson for hatred and bullying.
We have proof that the Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) Diversity Commission is using tuition and taxpayer monies to sponsor the Governors LGBTQ Youth Conference, as a result of information obtained by the DACC [sic] Young Americans for Freedom chapter, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Therefore, we Representatives of the people of Iowa, will vote against appropriations for (DMACC) unless they withhold taxpayer's dollars from the Governors LGBTQ Youth Conference.

Signed by the following legislators, all Republicans:

Senator David Johnson
Senator Mark Segebart
Senator Mark Chelgren
Senator Dennis Guth
Senator Bill Anderson
Senator Kent Sorenson
Senator Rick Bertrand
Representative Dwayne Alons
Representative Greg Heartsill
Representative Dean Fisher
Representative Rob Bacon
Representative Tom Shaw
Representative Jason Schultz
Representative Ralph Watts
Representative Larry Sheets
Representative Sandy Salmon

Bleeding Heartland readers will recognize some of those names: Alons, Schultz, and Watts are among Iowa's most clueless legislators. Shaw and several of the others co-sponsored the most extreme "personhood" legislation introduced this year. Sorenson is quite a piece of work.

Getting back to the point of this post, these sixteen Republicans are very upset about the governor's conference. How did they get from there to threatening to defund DMACC?

Sponsoring an LGBT event is appropriate for the Des Moines Area Community College Diversity Commission, which has a mission to help DMACC create a welcoming and inclusive culture. But even if it weren't, should more than 25,000 enrolled students at DMACC's nine locations be punished because lawmakers are upset over one conference?

The threat against DMACC is even more stupid because Iowa legislators are not in a position to withhold taxpayer money from one community college. The state budget sets aid levels for community colleges as a group. None of the lawmakers who signed this statement serve on the education appropriations subcommittees in the Iowa House or Senate, which may be one reason they don't seem to understand the process.

Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer downplayed any threat to community college funding during the latest edition of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program.

Obradovich: Representative Upmeyer, this week there was some controversy over the Governor's conference on gay and lesbian youth that is going on. Some representatives, including some in your caucus, have said that funding should be withheld from Des Moines Area Community College for hosting this conference. Do you think that that is something that is going to be discussed in the House?
Upmeyer: You know, when we start a new session people come from all over Iowa and people are diverse in their ideas and come together and I -- what I want to make sure people understand is that there's no confusion that the House republican caucus absolutely supports the community college system. The community college system is so important to us in providing workforce training and that is a skill set --
Borg: So what you're saying is you're not about in the House to penalize the Des Moines Area Community College for their contribution to this conference?
Upmeyer: Well, we'll look at the whole system. The community college system is funded as a unit and a whole system.

Most of the lawmakers who signed this ultimatum are relatively new legislators, but people like Alons and Johnson have been around long enough to know that you can't pull funding from one community college just because you're mad. In politics as in parenting, making rash threats you can't keep is the fastest way to get people to stop taking you seriously.

Looking on the bright side, only 16 statehouse Republicans joined the FAMiLY Leader's latest crusade. That's not even a quarter of the 77 GOP lawmakers (53 in the Iowa House, 24 in the Iowa Senate). Earlier this year, the FAMiLY Leader was able to get 18 Senate Republicans and 35 House Republicans to co-sponsor another big priority for the group: a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

I should also point out that some of these legislators may be opportunists rather than true believers in the FAMiLY Leader's cause. Chelgren and Bertrand will be the top two targeted Senate Republicans in the 2014 elections; both are first-term senators representing districts that lean Democratic. Sheets, Salmon, and Fisher all won their Iowa House seats for the first time in 2012 by narrow margins over their Democratic candidates. That said, I would guess that Sheets, Salmon, and Fisher are sincere, based on their support for other social conservative efforts.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Without naming names, The Iowa Republican blogger Kevin Hall writes,

At least one of the 16 Republican legislators threatening to pull taxpayer funding from DMACC because of their sponsorship of the LGBTQ conference is now having second thoughts. The legislator tells me he found out after signing onto the petition that DMACC uses only tuition money, not tax dollars, for "diversity" events like this and feels like he was "bamboozled" into signing on to it ...
However, during a 12-minute discussion after a press conference on Monday, DMACC Diversity Chair Marlana Schnell never denied taxpayer money was used, even when told directly by student Jake Dagel that he would continue to protest as long as they were using taxpayer dollars to sponsor the conference.

Iowa House: Birthplace and graveyard for marriage and abortion bills

desmoinesdem — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:25:00 GMT

During 2011 and 2012, the Iowa Senate was our state's firewall against the social conservative agenda. The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on abortion rights (twice), a "stand your ground" bill and a constitutional amendment that would invalidate virtually all restrictions on guns. All of those bills died in the Democratic-controlled state Senate.

Social issues have never been a priority for Iowa House leaders. They blocked a floor vote on a "personhood" bill in 2011 and steered clear of extremist crusades like impeaching Iowa Supreme Court justices and replacing gun permit laws with "constitutional carry." Still, I expected House Republicans to cover the usual bases during this year's legislative session.

Instead, almost every high-profile bill on so-called family values failed to win House committee approval and therefore died in the legislature's first funnel deadline last Friday. That includes some mainstream conservative efforts as well as freak show bills like ending no-fault divorce or barring county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Most amazing to me, House Republicans no longer have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
Let's start with marriage. Two years ago, all 60 Iowa House Republicans went on record supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Fifty-nine of them voted for the amendment on the House floor, and the one who was absent that day (Betty de Boef) was among the 56 co-sponsors.

On the opening day of this year's legislative session, House GOP leaders said nothing about protecting "traditional marriage" or the public's right to vote on the definition of marriage. The constitutional amendment on marriage, House Joint Resolution 11, attracted only 35 co-sponsors. That's just two-thirds of the House Republican caucus.

Here is the full list of co-sponsors in alphabetical order. I have indicated members of the House leadership team and put asterisks next to the names of those who voted for the amendment in 2011. The others were elected to the Iowa House for the first time in 2012.

Dwayne Alons*
Rob Bacon
Chip Baltimore*
Mark Brandenburg*
Mark Costello
Dave Deyoe*
Cecil Dolecheck*
Jack Drake*
Dean Fisher
Greg Forristall*
Joel Fry* (assistant majority leader)
Tedd Gassman
Pat Grassley*
Chris Hagenow* (House majority whip)
Greg Heartsill
Lee Hein*
Dan Huseman*
Ron Jorgensen*
Jarad Klein*
Kevin Koester*
John Landon
Linda Miller*
Dawn Pettengill*
Henry Rayhons*
Walt Rogers* (assistant majority leader)
Sandy Salmon
Tom Sands*
Jason Schultz*
Tom Shaw*
Larry Sheets
Chuck Soderberg*
Guy Vander Linden*
Ralph Watts*
Matt Windschitl* (assistant majority leader)
Gary Worthan*

The following 18 House Republicans declined to co-sponsor the marriage amendment. Asterisks note state representatives who voted for this constitutional amendment in 2011. The others were just elected to the Iowa House for the first time in 2012.

Clel Baudler*
Josh Byrnes*
Peter Cownie*
Julian Garrett*
Mary Ann Hanusa*
Dave Heaton*
Megan Hess
Jake Highfill
Bobby Kaufmann
Mark Lofgren*
David Maxwell
Brian Moore*
Steve Olson* (House speaker pro-tem)
Kraig Paulsen* (House speaker)
Jeff Smith* (assistant majority leader)
Quentin Stanerson
Rob Taylor
Linda Upmeyer* (House majority leader)

Note that the three top members of the leadership team all declined to co-sponsor the amendment.

To my knowledge, only one House Republican has publicly changed his stand on marriage: Josh Byrnes. Speaking to Mike Wiser last summer,

Byrnes said his views on same sex marriage - he does not oppose it - changed after he found out that a friend from high school married a same-sex partner and adopted children.
"He and his partner have been great parents, probably better than a lot of others out there," Byrnes said. "My phone hasn't been ringing off the hook about same-sex marriage. Look, I respect their opinions on it, but the constituents I talk to want to talk about education and the economy."

Some people who chose not to co-sponsor the amendment might vote for it anyway if necessary, but if just three of the 18 Republicans who declined to co-sponsor House Joint Resolution 11 quietly agree with Byrnes, then the amendment would fail on the House floor. (Republicans control 53 of the 100 Iowa House seats, and Dan Muhlbauer is the only Democrat still serving in the legislature who supported the marriage amendment in 2011.)

House Judiciary Committee Chair Chip Baltimore blamed timing for his committee's failure to take up the marriage amendment this year.

House Judiciary Chairman Chip Baltimore, R-Boone, said the bill was delivered too late to make it past this week's funnel deadline. Most bills not involving monetary issues have to make it through a subcommittee and committee by the end of the week to be considered "live." Baltimore, one of the bill's co-sponsors, faulted members of the Family Leader for holding onto the bill too long. "I signed on to this three weeks ago," he said. "I don't know why they sat on it this long."

That's a convenient excuse for Baltimore, but supporters filed this amendment on March 5. He could have rushed it through a subcommittee in time to have a full committee hearing by March 8. I suspect that he decided not to bring the bill up because he knew he might not have the votes to pass House Joint Resolution 11 in his committee.

The House Judiciary Committee contains twelve Republicans and nine Democrats. All of the Democrats oppose the marriage amendment. Three of the Republicans on Baltimore's committee did not co-sponsor the amendment (Julian Garrett, Dave Heaton, Bobby Kaufmann). In other words, Baltimore may not have been able to bring this legislation out of his committee even if he'd tried.

Alternatively, House leaders may have encouraged Baltimore to let the amendment die in committee so as to avoid an embarrassing failure to pass it on the House floor.

Chuck Hurley of the FAMiLY Leader organization put a brave face on defeat:

Chuck Hurley, Family Leader Foundation president, said the group didn't delay the bill intentionally but was trying to get more co-sponsors. Last session, more than 50 House members signed on to the legislation. "It was, admittedly, kind of late in the process," Hurley said. "The most likely outcome of that is that it will be brought up next year. The OK part of that is it's a two-biennium process (to get a Constitutional amendment), and so next year's fine. It's not going to slow things down any."

Nice try, Mr. Hurley. However, simple logic suggests that if a third of the House Republicans won't co-sponsor your bill now, and opinion polls show support for marriage equality growing every year, the FAMiLY Leader won't have better luck on this issue in 2014.

Other bills seeking to advance the conservative Christian agenda on marriage died in the funnel too. Last week many national blogs picked up the story about Iowa Republicans attempting to turn back the clock 40 years by ending no-fault divorce for couples with young children. State Representative Tedd Gassman's comments about his granddaughter at a subcommittee hearing were entertaining or embarrassing, depending on your point of view. But the "OMG, look at the crazy Iowa Republicans" blog posts ignored the fact that House File 338 had only seven co-sponsors (Gassman, Alons, Heartsill, Shaw, Schultz, Dolecheck, and Salmon). Gassman and Alons were able to pass this bill out of subcommittee, but Baltimore never took it up in the full House Judiciary Committee. Timing wasn't the issue here, because supporters introduced the no-fault divorce bill on February 27.

House File 444 stipulates that "the county registrar shall not grant a marriage license where both parties are of the same gender until such time as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is submitted to the electorate for ratification." This "blatantly unconstitutional" bill attracted only ten co-sponsors (Alons, Heartsill, Schultz, Sheets, Dolecheck, Fry, Gassman, Salmon, Koester, and Landon). Baltimore did not bring it up for a committee vote before the funnel deadline--which didn't stop the LGBT advocacy group One Iowa from trying to raise money off the effort.

Various bills that would have restricted abortions in Iowa also died in the House this year. Conservative blogger Shane Vander Hart posted a good summary at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Like last session the Republican-led Iowa House will not advance any pro-life legislation past funnel week. None. Nada. Zip. This would include the following bills, most of which would likely be dead on arrival in the Iowa Senate not that it really matters.
A personhood bill, House File 138, introduced by State Representative Tom Shaw (R-Laurens)
A personhood bill (doesn't penalize mothers), House File 171, introduced by State Representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley)
A ban against webcam abortions, House File 173, introduced by Windschitl.
A personhood state constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 12, introduced by State Representative Dwayne Alons (R-Hull).
[...] I'm tired of the circular firing squad. There's plenty of blame to go around. The simple fact is none of these bills would make it past a floor vote even though Republicans have a 53 seat majority.

Just ten Republicans co-sponsored Shaw's personhood bill (Shaw, Alons, Heartsill, Schultz, Bacon, Sheets, Koester, Fry, and Salmon). Only Fry is on the House leadership team.

Just twelve Republicans co-sponsored Windschitl's personhood bill (Windschitl, Klein, Koester, Fry, Schultz, Huseman, Fisher, Brandenburg, Landon, Hanusa, Costello, and Salmon). Only Fry and Windschitl are on the House leadership team.

The bill seeking to ban "telemedicine" abortions offered in some Planned Parenthood clinics around Iowa attracted 15 co-sponsors (Windschitl, Rogers, Klein, Koester, Fry, Schultz, Huseman, Fisher, Sheets, Landon, Hanusa, Maxwell, Costello, Salmon, and Hagenow). Windschitl, Fry, Rogers, and Hagenow are on the House leadership team, but I would have expected much broader support for this bill in the House Republican caucus.

The personhood constitutional amendment attracted only six co-sponsors, none of them on the House leadership team (Alons, Landon, Heartsill, Salmon, Koester, and Pettengill).

House File 138 and House File 171 died in Baltimore's Judiciary Committee. House Joint Resolution 12 and House File 173 died in the Human Resources Committee, chaired by State Representative Linda Miller.

No one who remembers the failed attempt to bring personhood to the House floor in 2011 could be surprised that House leaders tanked this year's versions of the "wackadoodle" movement. Nevertheless, I'd have thought that House Republicans would pass the telemedicine bill, if only to set up a talking point against House and Senate Democrats for the 2014 elections. During the last legislative session, House Republican leaders were determined to pass a late-term abortion ban, and conservative groups like the FAMiLY Leader used that issue against some Iowa Senate Democrats during the 2012 campaign.

This year, pro-choice Iowans didn't need to depend on the state Senate to block new abortion restrictions. House Republican leaders took care of that for us.

I understand why conservatives like Vander Hart are so frustrated when a Republican-controlled legislative chamber won't act on principles articulated clearly and strongly in the Iowa GOP platform. I felt the same way when the Democratic-controlled legislature failed to act on many of my priorities during 2007 through 2010.

Share any relevant comments in this thread.

P.S.- Many Iowa politics-watchers expect Baltimore to run for Congress or another higher office someday. If he runs for the open U.S. Senate seat or in the fourth Congressional district after Representative Steve King moves on, Baltimore's failure to advance "family values" bills could become a problem in a Republican primary.

UPDATE: Your unintentional comedy for the day comes from the Iowa House speaker.

Republicans expressed frustration that measures they have long pushed, such as abortion restrictions and seeking a public vote on gay marriage, have again failed, but they said they weren't surprised.
"Those issues are extremely important to House Republicans ... but Senate Democrats are going to block those initiatives," said House Speaker Kevin Paulsen, R-Hiawatha.

Yes, so "extremely important to House Republicans" that none of those abortion bills attracted more than 15 co-sponsors, and Chuck Hurley and Bob Vander Plaats could only get 35 people to sign on to the marriage amendment.

LATE UPDATE: Kevin Hall reported on some "pro-life" infighting at The Iowa Republican blog:

A "pro-life" organization based in western Iowa is once again attacking Rep. Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley). They blanketed his House district with literature Saturday [March 16], attacking Windschitl for sponsoring HF 173 ... What does this awful bill do? It bans web-cam abortions in Iowa. It saves lives and it is supported by every other pro-life organization in the state ...
They also attack Rep. Windschitl for not supporting "their" personhood bill. Apparently it's no longer Tom Shaw's bill, but it belongs to Iowa Pro-Life Action ... Of course, their propaganda never mentions that Rep. Windschitl has written and sponsored his own Life at Conception legislation ...
These people are shameless and will accomplish the exact opposite of what they claim to support. Their tactics will not save one life as they make enemies of the exact people they should be working with ... Makes. No. Sense.

Four strategies for interest group Iowa legislative endorsements

desmoinesdem — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:47:54 GMT

Many candidates for the Iowa House and Senate tout endorsements by outside groups in their campaign communications. Some of those groups pay for direct mail, phone calls, or even advertising supporting their endorsed candidates.

Iowa's influential political action committees and advocacy groups have very different ways of getting involved in the state legislative campaign. Follow me after the jump for examples of four distinct strategies.
Bipartisan, focused on protecting incumbents

For many corporate or industry-aligned PACs, giving money to elected officials in both parties is an insurance policy. We see the same phenomenon in Iowa as some organizations endorse numerous state representatives and senators from both parties for re-election. Two good examples come to mind: the Iowa Corn Growers Association PAC and the Iowa Credit Unions League.

The Corn Growers PAC endorsed 67 incumbents for re-election but no challengers or candidates in open House and Senate districts.

For Iowa Senate (13):
Merlin Bartz (R), Jerry Behn (R), Thomas Courtney (D), Jeff Danielson (D), Dick Dearden (D), Joni Ernst (R), Randy Feenstra (R), Mike Gronstal (D), Shawn Hamerlinck (R), Tim Kapucian (R), Brian Schoenjahn (D), Steve Sodders (D), and Mary Jo Wilhelm (D).
For Iowa House of Representatives (54):
Dwayne Alons (R), Chip Baltimore (R), Clel Baudler (R), Josh Byrnes (R), Dennis Cohoon (D), Peter Cownie (R), Dave Deyoe (R), Cecil Dolecheck (R), Jack Drake (R), Greg Forristall (R), Joel Fry (R), Julian Garrett (R), Pat Grassley (R), Bob Hager (R), Chris Hall (D), Curt Hanson (D), Mary Ann Hanusa (R), David Heaton (R), Bill Heckroth (D), Lisa Heddens (D), Lee Hein (R), Dan Huseman (R), Ron Jorgensen (R), Anesa Kajtazovic (D), Jerry Kearns (D), Dan Kelley (D), Jarad Klein (R), Kevin Koester (R), Bob Kressig (D), Jim Lykam (D), Mary Mascher (D), Kevin McCarthy (D), Helen Miller (D), Brian Moore (R), Dan Muhlbauer (D), Patrick Murphy (D), Steve Olson (R), Kraig Paulsen (R), Ross Paustian (R), Brian Quirk (D), Henry Rayhons (R), Walt Rogers (R), Kirsten Running-Marquardt (D), Thomas Sands (R), Renee Schulte (R), Jason Schultz (R), Jeff Smith (R), Mark Smith (D), Chuck Soderberg (R), Roger Thomas (D), Linda Upmeyer (R), Matt Windschitl (R), John Wittneben (D) and Gary Worthan (R).

Some of those incumbents are unopposed, while others are fighting for their political lives. Many have been members of agriculture and/or appropriations committees in the Iowa House or Senate during the past two years.

The Iowa Credit Union League endorsed 58 Iowa House candidates, including many from each party. Most are incumbents or candidates in open-seat races. The only challenger on the list is Tom Schueller, and he's a former incumbent who lost his Iowa House seat in 2010.

The credit unions group is also backing 25 senators or Senate candidates. A few will not be up for re-election until 2014. The others are a mixture of incumbents and candidates in open-seat races.

Support is not determined by party affiliation or on political ideology, but rather on where candidates stand on the import issues facing credit unions and their members. In the case of incumbents, it's based on their voting record on important credit union issues as well as responses to our candidate questionnaire. In the case of challengers and open seat candidates, it's based on the questionnaire and, many times, in-person conversations with credit union and ICUL staff. The analysis is thorough and substantive.
As a result of this non-political analysis, credit unions are supporting Republicans and Democrats at almost equal levels in 2012. The amount of CUPAC contributions that have been provided to state legislative candidates is very close to 50/50. In short, support is based on policy, not politics.

The Iowa Credit Union PAC has sent direct mail on behalf of three incumbent senators in tough races: Democrat Jeff Danielson (Senate district 30) and Republicans Merlin Bartz (Senate district 26) and Shawn Hamerlinck (Senate district 46). The eye-catching mail pieces advocating for Bartz, Hamerlinck, and Danielson have a similar look and feel. No matter which party gains control of the Iowa Senate, someone in the majority caucus will be particularly grateful to the credit unions.

Bipartisan, but willing to take on unfriendly incumbents

Some interest groups are willing to support any incumbent who supports their agenda, regardless of party. At the same time, they don't hesitate to endorse challengers to lawmakers who vote against their agenda. The National Rifle Association is a good example. You can view their 2012 endorsements for Iowa here, along with grades for all of the sitting legislators up for re-election. Although the NRA backs a lot more Republicans than Democrats, two Democratic senators (Tom Courtney and Dick Dearden) did receive the group's seal of approval. Dearden championed the return of dove-hunting to Iowa and has led the charge against restricting dove hunters' use of lead ammunition.

The NRA isn't supporting any Iowa House Democrats this year, because the whole House Democratic caucus opposed "stand your ground" legislation during the 2012 session. Many Republican challengers have the NRA's backing.

But during the 2010 campaign, the NRA endorsed lots of Democratic lawmakers as well as Governor Chet Culver. That year, a Democratic-controlled Iowa House and Senate passed legislation making it easier to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Partisan, but mostly leaving incumbents alone

The Iowa Industry PAC, affiliated with the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, is a good example of an interest group with a mostly partisan approach to elections. The Iowa Industry PAC describes itself as "non-partisan," supporting candidates from both parties. In reality, this group backs only a handful of token Democrats during each election cycle. In 2010, the PAC endorsed only three Democratic senators (two at no risk of losing) and a few House Democrats who had helped block pro-labor legislation.

~~This year, Brian Quirk and Dave Jacoby are the only Iowa House Democrats to receive the Iowa Industry PAC's endorsement.~~ Neither has a general election opponent on the ballot (pdf). CORRECTION: The Iowa Industry PAC endorsed seven Democratic Iowa House candidates. Three have no opponent on the ballot (Quirk, Jacoby, and Nancy Dunkel). Two are in districts Democrats should win easily (Helen Miller and Sally Stutsman). The other two are in heavily contested seats (Dan Muhlbauer and Joe Riding).

Meanwhile, only two sitting Senate Democrats received the Iowa Industry PAC's 2012 endorsement, Liz Mathis and Steve Sodders. A few months ago, political insiders expected both to win re-election, although the Sodders race in Senate district 36 is up in the air.

Whereas the truly bipartisan Iowa Credit Union PAC endorsed many Democrats and Republicans running for open seats, the Iowa Industry PAC endorsed ~~solely~~ mostly Republicans in House and Senate districts lacking an incumbent. (Correction: Riding, Stutsman, and Dunkel are running in open seats.) Clearly this PAC wants Republicans to hold their Iowa House majority and take control of the Iowa Senate.

That said, the Iowa Industry PAC appears less willing to make waves than the NRA. Only two GOP challengers have the PAC's official endorsement: Matt Reisetter (Danielson's opponent in Senate district 30) and Allen Burt (running against Mark Smith in House district 71).

Majority-making ideological: partisan and actively opposing unfriendly incumbents

For some interest groups, one political party is clearly more in line with the legislative agenda. Those groups can only hope to exercise real influence when that party is in the majority. So, labor unions endorse many Democratic incumbents and some (but not all) challengers to sitting Republicans. That's not to say a labor union wouldn't endorse a pro-labor Republican if one existed, but Iowans aren't likely to see that kind of candidate in my lifetime.

On the other side of the spectrum, social conservative groups like Iowa Right to Life and the FAMiLY Leader (formerly the Iowa Family Policy Center) endorse a wide range of Republican incumbents, challengers, and candidates for open seats. Bleeding Heartland covered the FAMiLY Leader's spending in 2012 legislative races here.

There are no longer any pro-choice Republicans in the Iowa House or Senate. In the old days, a handful used to receive support from Planned Parenthood's PAC. Now Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa endorses only certain Democratic candidates.

The Iowans for Tax Relief PAC endorsed 13 state legislative candidates this year, all Republicans: incumbents Jerry Behn, Chip Baltimore, and Guy Vander Linden; challengers Matt Reisetter, Jim Kenyon, Jane Jech, Mark Nelson, and Mike Klimesh; and open-seat candidates John Landon, Dan Zumbach, Greg Heartsill, Andrew Naeve, and Amy Sinclair. Usually this group endorses more Republicans, but during the past year a bunch of GOP legislators and candidates have expressed support for raising the gasoline tax.

I would put the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation's PAC in this category too, because they are heavily skewed toward the Republican side, despite endorsing a few token Democrats like the Iowa Industry PAC does. The Farm Bureau survey for legislative candidates includes a few questions that have little apparent relevance for farmers but come straight out of GOP talking points:

3. Do you believe that one-time money, such as the state's ending fund balance, should be spent on one-time expenditures or on-going expenses? [...]
11. Do you support expanding the scope of negotiation under Iowa 's collective bargaining law? [...]
14. Do you support voters registering and voting on the same day?

This year the Farm Bureau refused to release their full list of Iowa legislative endorsements, but Republican press releases posted here show that mostly GOP candidates got the "Friend of Agriculture" nod, including incumbents Jerry Behn and Pat Ward, challenger Jane Jech, and open-seat candidates Amy Sinclair, Andrew Naeve, Michael Breitbach, Larry Kruse, and Mark Segebart. I am not aware of any sitting Democrats endorsed as "Friends of Agriculture" other than Senator Brian Schoenjahn.

Notably, three Republicans were endorsed by both the Farm Bureau Federation and Iowans for Tax relief: Behn, Jech, and Naeve. All three of their races are important for the GOP's quest for a Senate majority. Supporting the gas tax hike is a good thing from the Farm Bureau's perspective but anathema to Iowans for Tax Relief, which explains some of the Republican names missing from each group's endorsement list.

Judicial retention election news and discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:55:30 GMT

The Des Moines Register's latest Iowa poll indicates a close contest for Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, the target of an anti-retention campaign by social conservatives. In an unexpected move, former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants publicly advocated a yes vote on Wiggins, despite Rants' opposition to same-sex marriage rights.

In related news, yesterday marked the end of the road for conservative activists trying to challenge Iowa's 50-year-old system for nominating judges.

Follow me after the jump for details.
Selzer and Co surveyed 650 likely Iowa voters between September 23 and 26. Jeff Eckhoff summarized the findings on the retention elections for the Des Moines Register's October 1 edition.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters want to retain Wiggins, who participated in the court's landmark 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa. Forty-one percent say they'll vote to remove him from office. Nine percent aren't sure how they'll vote, and 1 percent intend to skip voting on the question.
Two years ago, a heated campaign saw Iowa voters oust three justices who also joined in the unanimous decision. A mid-September poll in 2010 yielded a tighter result: 31 percent of voters favored retention for all three, 12 percent favored retention for one or two, and 29 percent favored removal. [...]
Bob Vander Plaats, head of Iowans For Freedom, the group leading the "No Wiggins" campaign, said organizers "knew it was going to be an uphill battle from the start, but it was an uphill battle two years ago."
"If he's under a majority, I think that is a good sign for us," Vander Plaats said, noting that retention opponents spent much of their time in 2010 educating voters on how a retention election works. "I really believe we're in better shape than we were two years ago."
For his part, Wiggins issued a one-sentence statement Friday saying he believes Iowa's electorate has shifted since the 2009 Varnum vs. Brien ruling.
"In my conversations with people around the state, I get the sense that Iowans are getting more comfortable with the present state of the law," Wiggins said.

The Register's poll indicated that 34 percent of respondents approve of how Wiggins handles his job, 23 percent disapprove, and 43 percent were unsure.

A Iowa poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in August found that found 47 percent of respondents favor retaining the four Iowa Supreme Court justices who will be on the ballot this November (Wiggins and three justices Governor Terry Branstad appointed in 2011). Another 24 percent favor ousting the justices and 25 percent said they were not sure.

One surprising "Yes on Wiggins" voter made his plans public on Sunday. Since retiring from the Iowa House, Chris Rants has been writing a regular opinion column for the Sioux City Journal. I recommend reading his whole piece from the September 30 edition. He describes meeting with Chuck Hurley, then president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, when Rants was speaker of the House.

Hurley was in my office to convince me that Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act needed to be put in the state Constitution. Being in state code wasn't good enough. Based on rulings in other states it was likely to be overturned. The only way to protect one-man-and-one-woman marriage was to put it in the Constitution. [...]
Flash forward to today. The FAMiLY Leader, out on their bus tour, would have us believe that our Supreme Court hijacked the Constitution, usurping the roles of chief executive and Legislature. Justice Wiggins must go or the republic will fail.
That is not true. That is why I will vote YES to retain Justice Wiggins.
I didn't like the decision, but I wasn't surprised by it. Nor do I think the judges hatched some nefarious plot of judicial activism. [...]
I share this story because those who want to toss Justice Wiggins are the same ones who came to me knowing the law wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Why else put it in the Constitution? Every lawyer I talked to in advance of the ruling who read the briefs submitted to the court told me the law was going to be tossed.
In short, the court did what we expected. Today's outrage rings hollow. [...]
Two years earlier Iowa's flag desecration law was struck down as violating the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. No one screamed "judicial activism." There were no bus tours. The law was flawed. We knew it. So the Legislature wrote a new law to pass constitutional muster and still protect the flag. The system worked. The Legislature chose not to respond to the court ruling on gay marriage in a similar way. Who is to blame for that? We are. Not Justice Wiggins.

I don't see how anyone can challenge Rants' bona fides on this issue. As Iowa House speaker, he got a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed in his chamber. When Democrats held an Iowa House majority, Ranks repeatedly tried to force a floor vote on that constitutional amendment--both before and after the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality.

By the way, Rants also mentioned that Wiggins was part of the Iowa Supreme Court majority that ruled in favor of state legislators in the Rants v Vilsack case. Governor Tom Vilsack had appointed Wiggins.

I would make one minor correction to Rants' opinion piece: he states that "most of the judges were appointees from Gov. Branstad's first four terms." At the time of the Varnum v Brien decision, the Iowa Supreme Court was made up of two Branstad appointees (Marsha Ternus and Mark Cady), four Vilsack appointees (Wiggins, Michael Streit, Daryl Hecht, and Brent Appel), and one Chet Culver appointee (David Baker).

Following the successful campaign against retaining Ternus, Streit, and Baker in 2010, some Iowa conservatives sought to change the state's system for selecting Supreme Court justices. This page on the Iowa Judicial Branch website explains how the process has worked since Iowans approved an amendment to the state constitution in 1962.

State legislators' attempts to change the process never got off the ground during the 2011 legislative session. The only hope for opponents of the merit selection system was a federal lawsuit filed in December 2010, spearheaded by Indiana attorney Jim Bopp of the James Madison Center for Free Speech. The lawsuit claimed that the nominating system discriminates against Iowa citizens who are not attorneys, because members of the Iowa State Bar Association are able to choose seven of the fifteen State Judicial Nominating Commission members.

A federal district court judge granted Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller's motion to dismiss that lawsuit in January 2011. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that ruling in April of this year. Bleeding Heartland posted excerpts from the district court and appeals court rulings here. Or, click these links to read the full district court and appeals court decisions (both are pdf files).

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an legal challenge to Iowa's judicial selection system. No further appeals are possible. Conservative-backed federal lawsuits challenging merit selection systems in other states have also failed.

As the second most senior justice on the Iowa Supreme Court, Wiggins chairs the State Judicial Nominating Commission. He will continue in that role if Iowans vote to retain him in November. If Wiggins loses the retention vote, the next chair of the judicial nominating commission would be Justice Daryl Hecht.

Iowa Senate district 30: Jeff Danielson and Matt Reisetter up on tv

desmoinesdem — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:54:21 GMT

Both Democratic incumbent Jeff Danielson and Republican challenger Matt Reisetter have started advertising on television in what is expected to be one of Iowa's most competitive legislative races: Iowa Senate district 30. Both videos and transcripts are after the jump, along with a district map and background on both candidates.
Iowa Senate district 30 covers Cedar Falls, parts of Waterloo, Hudson, and some rural areas in Black Hawk County.

As of September 2012, Iowa Senate district 30 contained 12,419 registered Democrats, 13,195 Republicans, and 16,711 no-party voters according to the Iowa Secretary of State's office (pdf). As John Deeth pointed out, by the registration numbers Jeff Danielson has the most difficult district to defend among all of the Democratic Senate incumbents on the ballot this year. (Redistricting was more unkind to Senators Jack Kibbie and Tom Rielly, but both retired rather than seek re-election in overwhelmingly Republican districts.)

Danielson won his first term in the Iowa Senate in 2004 by a margin of about 2,400 votes (pdf), but he barely won re-election in 2008, beating Republican Walt Rogers by just 22 votes after a recount. Democratic House candidates in both halves of Danielson's old district won by more comfortable margins in 2008. One of them, Doris Kelley, then lost to Rogers in November 2010.

Many Iowa politics-watchers expected a Danielson-Rogers rematch this year, but Rogers is seeking a second term in the Iowa House instead. He faces Waterloo City Council member Bob Greenwood in the new House district 60. In the other half of Danielson's Senate district, House district 59, Democratic State Representative Bob Kressig faces veterinarian and Cedar Falls school board member Jim Kenyon.

Danielson's campaign website includes this official bio.

Iowa State Senator
I work for you, plain and simple. Much of the manufactured drama of our day is designed to divide us, rather than unite us around a common purpose of prosperity for all. Being personally responsible, creating opportunity for all and having a deep sense of community are my guiding values as your Senator. Treating people decent, doing my homework and solving problems is my focus.
Firefighting, Family & Fun
I'm a Cedar Valley kid, through and through. That's why I mean it when I say the Cedar Valley is the best place in Iowa to live, work and play. I know, I've lived it. I was born in Waterloo and attended local schools in Cedar Falls and Waterloo.
After graduation from Central High in Waterloo in 1988, I joined the Navy. Kim and I first met at Edison Jr. High and later married, making us a Navy family.
I served from 1988 to 1994, completing deployments to the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, earning the Navy Good Conduct, Armed Forces Expeditionary, Southwest Asia and National Defense Service medals. I left the Navy as a Petty Officer 2nd Class to come home with Kim and our son Brendan.
Back home, while working and raising a family, I utilized the G.I. Bill to earn an Associate of Arts from Hawkeye Community College, a Bachelors of Arts in Public Administration (Summa Cum Laude), a minor in Leadership Studies and a Masters of Public Policy from the University of Northern Iowa. Throughout my college career, I was a Golden Key International Honor Society member and earned UNI's Purple & Old Gold award for meritorious scholarship as the highest grade point (3.96) graduate in the Public Administration program.
Being able to serve my community as a fire fighter is a privilege I do not take for granted. I began working as a fire fighter for the City of Cedar Falls while completing my graduate degree at the University of Northern Iowa and continue to work as a fire fighter while serving in the Iowa Senate.
I returned to UNI in 2006, this time to teach future generations as Professor of Public Policy. My family and I are strong supporters and fans of UNI athletics and activities and try to attend as many games/events as possible. I try to continue serving our community by volunteering for several community boards, commissions & organizations, including:
* Iowa Department of Transportation Commission
* City of Waterloo's Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission
* Hawkeye chapter of the American Red Cross
* UNI Leadership Advisory Board
* Black Hawk Economic Development, Inc.
* Lifetime member of the Cedar Falls Amvets Post #49
* UNI Alumni Association
* Waterloo Exchange Club
* Cedar Falls Firefighters Association
* Iowa Firemen's Association
* Waterloo Elks Lodge #290
* International Association of Fire Fighters
Community/Wellness
As a fire fighter and State Senator, I feel a strong responsibility to serve the people of the Cedar Valley to the best of my ability and remain active in our community. I enjoy attending community events like Iowa Irish Fest, Hudson Days, Sturgis Falls, My Waterloo Days and countless other events that highlight what makes our communities great.
When I am not at the fire house, I also enjoy staying physically fit and active. I enjoy playing golf at any of the quality public golf courses around the Cedar Valley and taking my dog, Coco (a 100lb chocolate lab), for walks on one of the many trails or parks around the Cedar Valley. As a former Navy man, I also exercise and try to take responsibility for my own personal health and wellness. It is often difficult to find the time, but I do think it is important that we all take time to take care of ourselves physically, and have worked hard to ensure our community has the trails, work out facilities and other quality of life amenities.

Danielson has worked on a wide range of issues in the legislature. As chair of the Iowa Senate State Government Committee, he was the lead advocate of Iowa's 2010 campaign finance disclosure law, passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Danielson supports further restrictions on corporate political spending. He has also been the main proponent of legalizing online poker in Iowa, which hasn't gone beyond the study phase yet. During this year's legislative session, Danielson led efforts to secure state funding for the Iowa Food Bank Association, although Governor Terry Branstad vetoed that appropriation. The "ideas" page of Danielson's website contains general principles and priorities rather than specifics about what legislation Danielson would work on if he wins a third term.

Nonpartisanship and working together are the themes of Danielson's first campaign commercial of the year, which he announced yesterday. This 30-second spot is running on cable television in Waterloo/Cedar Falls.

My transcript:

Female voice-over: Senator Jeff Danielson believes that the Cedar Valley is stronger together. [Spot opens with campaign logo, Danielson Iowa Senate, shifting to photo of Danielson with urban backdrop.]
Stronger together means better jobs and careers, health care access, and quality education. [photo of Danielson, words on screen STRONGER TOGETHER, then BETTER JOBS; different photo of Danielson talking with woman, words on screen QUALITY HEALTH CARE, then WORLD CLASS EDUCATION]
It means a balanced budget that expects results and invests in our future. [photo of Danielson sitting at desk, flag in background, words on screen FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, then INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE]
We are stronger together when we put our politics aside and work together, Republican, Democrats, and independents. [photo of Danielson with main street shops in background, words on screen STRONGER TOGETHER, then WORKING TOGETHER]
Jeff Danielson will lead the Cedar Valley by ensuring we are stronger together. [photo of Danielson taking the oath of office in the Senate chamber, words on screen LEADING THE CEDAR VALLEY, then STRONGER TOGETHER]
Paid for by Danielson for Senate. [Danielson campaign logo on screen again, also words STRONGER TOGETHER and website www.JeffDanielson.org ]

Nothing unusual about this commercial. Iowa lawmakers tend to avoid mentioning their party identification in their advertising. Quality education, health care access, and a balanced budget that invests in our future are themes in campaign materials for other Democratic incumbents and challengers.

To my knowledge, Danielson is the first incumbent Iowa legislator to start advertising on television this year.

Danielson's opponent, Matt Reisetter, is one of the most active and best-financed Iowa Republican challengers. He officially kicked off his campaign in February and became the top fundraiser among Iowa Senate Republican candidates during the first half of this year, pulling in more than $44,000 according to his July campaign finance report (pdf). Amazingly, Reisetter raised more than either Iowa Senate Minority Leader Jerry Behn, who has served in the legislature for 16 years, or Iowa Senate Minority Whip Brad Zaun, who represents wealthy and heavily Republican precincts in Urbandale. The Iowa Republican blogger Craig Robinson highly praised Reisetter's fundraising strategy. It's important for candidates not to be afraid to ask for money by mail, phone, or in person. Having worked closely with Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley at the Iowa Family Policy Center and its successor, the FAMiLY Leader, surely helped open the door for Reisetter to many Iowa Republican donors.

Danielson raised less than half as much as Reisetter during the first half of 2012 but went into the general election campaign with more than $83,000 cash on hand, nearly double Reisetter's total.

Reisetter's report listed quite a few $1,000 donors, but his largest campaign contribution was $10,000 from Foster Freiss, better known as the moneybags behind the super-PAC supporting Rick Santorum for president. (Danielson's campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail blast highlighting Freiss' support for Reisetter and Freiss' famous comment, "Back in my day, the gals put Aspirin between their knees.")

Reisetter was the only challenger to an Iowa Democratic legislator to be endorsed by the Iowa Industry PAC this year. Affiliated with the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the Iowa Industry PAC typically endorses Republican incumbents and GOP candidates in open-seat races.

Judging from this page on the Iowa Senate Republicans website, the Iowa Farm Bureau appears to have left Reisetter off its long list of GOP "friends of agriculture" candidates. I would like to know the story behind that snub. At least one other Republican challenger to a Democratic Senate incumbent, Jane Jech, did receive the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation's endorsement. (Jech is running against one-term Senator Steve Sodders in Iowa Senate district 36.)

Reisetter doesn't play up his social conservative side on his campaign website (sophisticated by Iowa legislator standards). The issues page includes only brief blurbs about jobs, limited government, and education. Here's the candidate's official bio:

Matt Reisetter ("REE-ster"...rhymes with "Easter") was born at the former Schoitz Memorial Hospital on October 25, 1975 and raised in Cedar Falls, son of a plumber and a public school teacher turned at-home mom turned public school teacher again.
Among other things, Tom and Jan Reisetter raised Matt to trust God, take responsibility for his own actions, and work hard. They also modeled for their three kids the value of serving others through their involvement in the church and in the community. In particular, Matt credits much of his desire to serve as an elected office holder to his dad's example - Tom was elected to the Cedar Falls School Board on various occasions and served there for more than 20 years.
Growing up, Matt attended Valley Park Elementary School, Peet Junior High School, and in 1994, graduated from Cedar Falls High School, where he was active with various extra curricular activities earning, among other things, his Eagle Scout Award. He went on to attend the University of Northern Iowa where he earned a BA in Science in 1998. Early on in college, seemingly headed toward medical school, Matt thought he wanted to be a surgeon, but as his college years evolved, he discovered a deep passion for ministry and politics - "the two things, ironically," Matt jokes, "that you're not supposed to talk about with people!"
In 1999, after a year of graduate school in Minnesota, Matt moved back to Cedar Falls, became College Ministry Director at Nazareth Church, and married Jen, who he had fallen in love with at UNI. Their first son, Mason, came along in 2004, followed by Jillian in 2007, and a second daughter, Jentry, in 2010.
Matt ran for a seat in the Iowa House in 2006, then went on to work as Director of Development for The Family Leader and its predecessor organization, the Iowa Family Policy Center. Reisetter left The Family Leader at the beginning of 2012; he is now the owner of consulting firm SDG Solutions.
Matt, with the full support of Jen and the kids, is excited to jump into the 2012 campaign. His authenticity, his capacity to listen and learn, and his ability to connect with a wide variety of people will make him Senator that the people of western Black Hawk County can be proud of; a Senator who will represent all people, regardless of political persuasion, with dignity, integrity, honor, and respect.
Get signed up for email updates and/or get connected with the campaign on Facebook and Twitter, so you can stay tuned on the most recent developments as the the race unfolds!

Reisetter stressed fiscal conservatism in his opening television commercial, which he announced on Facebook September 7.

My transcript:

Reisetter: When I was a young man working on my Eagle Scout award, I was taught to always leave my campsite better than I found it. [Reisetter campaign logo, Matt Reisetter Iowa Senate on screen next to candidate, speaking directly to the camera in an outdoor setting]
Don't you think we need to do the same thing today? I'm Matt Reisetter. [close-up of Reisetter, still speaking to camera]
Our politicians can't keep spending money we don't have on things we don't need. [Footage of Reisetter sitting at a desk, signing some papers]
Send me to the Iowa Senate and I'll protect the family budget, for your children, grandchildren, and for my three kids. [Reisetter speaks to camera again, then footage of candidate with family at the kitchen table; words on screen Matt Reisetter STOP OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING, shifts to PROTECT THE FAMILY BUDGET, then footage of Reisetter in big armchair, reading book to kids]
Female voice-over: Matt Reisetter--a strong leader for Iowa's future. [footage of Reisetter and his wife holding hands, walking outdoors, then campaign logo appears on screen]

In terms of production values and overall message, the Reisetter ad is fine but nothing special, like Danielson's. I get tired of Republicans pretending that Iowa needs to be protected from "out of control spending," when we've had budget surpluses with full state reserve funds the last couple of years. However, that message probably resonates with many voters who wrongly believe that state legislators have been "spending money we don't have on things we don't need."

Note: even a hard-core Vander Plaats guy like Reisetter recognizes that running against abortion and gay marriage would be a loser strategy in a swing district. No doubt social conservative groups from Iowa and out of state will actively support Reisetter, though. By the same token, progressive groups backing Democratic legislative candidates are likely to target Senate district 30. The race could be the one that determines control of the Iowa Senate for the next two years. The Conservative Reader blogger Justin Arnold considers Senate district 30 one of five that could go either way. I don't agree entirely with Arnold's assessment of the competitive Senate races, but I do see district 30 as a tossup.

I expect Danielson and Reisetter to stay mostly positive in their campaign communication, letting other groups fund most of the attack ads and negative direct mail.

Strong GOTV by Barack Obama's campaign in Waterloo and Cedar Falls most likely saved Danielson's political career in 2008. The Iowa Democratic Party's jump on early voting is probably helping the incumbent again. A representative of the Black Hawk County Auditor's elections office told me today that as of September 11, the office had received 7,179 absentee ballot request forms: 5,064 from registered Democrats, 384 from Republicans, and 1,731 from no-party voters. I do not know what proportion of those absentee ballot requests came from voters living in Iowa Senate district 30.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. For Bleeding Heartland users who enjoy social media, Reisetter is @mattforiowa on Twitter and on Facebook here. Danielson is @JeffDanielson on Twitter and on Facebook here.

Anti-abortion groups MIA as Iowa welcomes Chinese VP

desmoinesdem — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:44:28 GMT

As Iowa's top state officials welcomed Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping yesterday, activists gathered in Muscatine and Des Moines to protest China's policy of repression in Tibet. Governor Terry Branstad praised Xi and his country, gushing about the potential to expand trade and friendship between Iowa and China.

Iowa's "pro-life" movement was nowhere to be seen and had nothing to say about Xi's visit.
Xi first met Branstad when visiting Iowa in 1985. Iowa had established a sister-state relationship with Hebei province, where Xi was an official in the agriculture sector. He came to Muscatine and stayed with a local family who also attended yesterday's events. Sarah Lande of Muscatine was working with the Iowa Sister Cities Friendship Committee at the time. Her husband, Roger Lande, is now director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The Landes hosted Xi's delegation at their Muscatine home yesterday. The event went smoothly, but according to Jo Ling Kent of NBC News, security took an alternate route to the Lande home to avoid protesters waving a large Tibetan flag. In addition, state troopers and a Chinese security official "ushered away" protesters carrying "Stop Prosecuting the Falun Gong" signs, who got through the barricades. Muscatine Journal editor Chris Steinbach said protesters were "easily heard" from the Landes' porch.

I saw no mention of any anti-abortion protesters in Steinbach's report or any other media account. Ed Tibbetts, who covered Xi's Muscatine visit for the Quad-City Times, saw demonstrators both for and against the Chinese government on the scene, as well as a "handful of protesters" who objected to China "taking our jobs." He did not see any anti-abortion activists.

I found that odd, since more abortions are performed in China than in any other country. Thirteen million terminations per year is considered a conservative estimate; only Russia has a higher abortion rate. Many of those abortions stem directly from the Chinese government's one-child policy, as married women abort to avoid exceeding their quota or after learning they are carrying a girl.

After leaving Muscatine yesterday, Xi's delegation came to Des Moines. Hundreds of activists protested at the capitol before marching through downtown. The Des Moines Register quoted Gabriel Feinstein of the Midwest Coalition for Tibet as saying,

"The governor here is selling out," he said. "And it doesn't matter how many soybeans and how many trade deals are signed, China is still going to be an oppressive dictatorship."
Branstad has said that he would let the Obama administration handle political and human rights questions regarding Xi and China.
Protestors carried Tibetan flags, mock coffins draped with the Tibetan flag and signs that read: "Shame on you communist China," "Tibet will be free," and "My country is burning. My people are suffering." Several people carried a large banner that read: "Global intervention now."
Organizers and protesters led chants that included: "Shame, shame, China, shame;" "Shame on the Chinese government;" and "Allow the media in Tibet."

Again, I saw no reference to anti-abortion demonstrators in any media coverage of Xi's Des Moines visit. Iowa Right to Life Executive Director Jenifer Welch did not respond to my request for comment yesterday, but a person who answered the phone at Iowa Right to Life headquarters confirmed that no protest was planned. I did not hear back from Iowa Pro-Life Action, a group formed late last year to advocate for "personhood" legislation.

Julie Summa, director of marketing and public outreach for the FAMiLY Leader, did take my call yesterday. She confirmed that the group led by Bob Vander Plaats wasn't organizing any protest and hadn't drafted a press release in connection with Xi's visit. Summa said leaders "hadn't had a chance to discuss" that issue, adding that they've been "busy the past two days" talking about Governor Branstad's involvement with an anti-bullying conference.

Think about that for a moment. Xi Jinping is expected to become president of China someday. His Iowa visit has been planned for weeks. Iowa's self-styled "pro-life" governor couldn't be more excited to welcome a leader of a country where religious freedom is limited, and millions of women have been coerced to have abortions. The geniuses at the FAMiLY Leader didn't get around to discussing this development. They've been too busy urging Branstad to snub an LGBT-friendly youth conference.

I understand diplomatic protocol and economic reality. Just as Iowa companies traded with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, Iowa industries stand to benefit from expanding trade with China now. Branstad is pro-business above all else. He's not going to muck things up by talking about the "sanctity of life" while Xi's in town. The governor's toast at last night's state dinner did mention Iowa's "safe and reliable agricultural products," perhaps alluding to various food safety disasters in China. But I wouldn't expect anyone in the Branstad administration to take a stand for human rights in front of Xi.

Advocates who devote their professional lives to restricting women's reproductive rights have no excuse for punting yesterday. If you can't be bothered to send a message against abortion when the future leader of China is in town, don't tell me you are concerned about protecting every fetus, everywhere.

By the way, the invitation list for last night's state dinner included a "few hundred" Iowa business executives as well as top state officials, judges, and all 150 state legislators. Every Republican now serving in the Iowa House and Senate claims to oppose abortion rights. I am curious to know how many of them declined to dine with the Chinese vice president. State Representative Kim Pearson confirmed by e-mail that she did not attend. I will update this post if I learn about anyone else who stayed away on principle.

I noticed that Iowa House Republicans Chris Hagenow, Pat Grassley and Renee Schulte tweeted enthusiastically from the big event. All of them were happy to interfere in the lives of Iowa women who may need late-term abortions for medical reasons. Hagenow and Grassley took a stand for "personhood" legislation declaring that the Iowa government considers life to begin at conception. But never mind that now; business is business.

Republican Governors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Snyder of Michigan also attended last night's state dinner in Des Moines. Both are seeking to expand trade between China and their own states. Both also support restricting American women's right to choose.

LATE UPDATE: The Des Moines Register posted the full guest list for the state dinner at the capitol online. Five state senators and 22 state representatives did not attend. I wouldn't assume that everyone who was absent stayed away on principle; some may have had other commitments that prevented them from being in Des Moines that night.

For the record, these Iowa Senate members did not attend the dinner honoring Vice President Xi's visit:

Bill Anderson (R), Jeff Danielson (D), Tom Hancock (D), Tim Kapucian (R), Paul McKinley (R)

These Iowa House members did not attend the dinner:

Dwayne Alons (R), Royd Chambers (R), Dennis Cohoon (D), Peter Cownie (R), Dan Huseman (R), Dave Jacoby (D), Steve Lukan (R), Jim Lykam (D), Glen Massie (R), Pat Murphy (D), Jo Oldson (D), Kim Pearson (R), Dawn Pettengill (R), Brian Quirk (D), Dan Rasmussen (R), Henry Rayhons (R), Tom Shaw (R), Kurt Swaim, Jeremy Taylor (R)

Bob Vander Plaats just can't help himself

desmoinesdem — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:08:21 GMT

Barely a month after being on a winning team, Bob Vander Plaats appears determined not to let anyone forget that he's the biggest loser in Iowa politics.
Vander Plaats was riding high after the Iowa caucuses. The top dog in the social conservative group FAMiLY Leader got on the Rick Santorum bandwagon at the right time. His personal endorsement probably didn't contribute much to Santorum's momentum in Iowa, but it overshadowed the FAMiLY Leader's "marriage vow" litmus test, which was too much even for world-class panderers like Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

The ink was barely dry on Santorum's uncertified Iowa caucus victory when the FAMiLY Leader claimed in an e-mail to supporters that Governor Terry Branstad's office was asking to have his title removed from the seventh annual Iowa Governors Conference on LGBTQ Youth.

The Governor's office told us last week that they have asked the conference organizers to remove the word "Governor's" from the event. The Governor's spokesman also indicated that state government agencies would not be participating in the conference, like they did under Governors Vilsack and Culver.

Branstad's office originally declined to comment on the story, but a few days later Branstad said at a press conference, "I believe in treating everybody with respect and dignity and certainly we want to make sure that nobody is bullied." The governor also sent this letter to Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools:

Dear Mr. Monson,
As you know, I am regrettably not able to attend your upcoming conference because of a scheduling conflict. However, I support the conference and its goal of eliminating bullying and making Iowa schools safe for all students. I do not object to you including the word "Governor's" in the conference title in keeping with the historical name and the emphasis on its importance to Iowa schools.
As you know, I have already officially proclaimed September 1 "Safe Schools Day." I hope that in my absence, you will read that proclamation to conference attendees.
You have my very best wishes for a successful conference this year and in future years.
Sincerely,
Terry E. Branstad
Governor

Most people would be embarrassed to have bragged about something that didn't happen, but Vander Plaats upped the ante with a long press release about the conference on February 6. Todd Dorman posted the whole statement. Excerpts:

This is an obvious change in his position. On January 18th, a spokesman for Governor Branstad's office told The FAMILY LEADER that the administration was planning to contact event coordinators and request the exclusion of the word "Governor's" from the Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth. The FAMILY LEADER publicly complimented the Governor's action via an email alert. [...]
Bob Vander Plaats, President and CEO of The FAMILY LEADER, says, "Governor Branstad needs to be held accountable for his support of this conference and the promotion of a very radical and dangerous left-wing agenda."
As a former teacher, coach, and high school principal, Vander Plaats reiterated his and The FAMILY LEADER's opposition to harassment and bullying of any type within a school setting. Bob remarked, "Effective leaders in education provide safe learning environments. However, effective educational leaders also lead with a focus on academic achievement versus agenda acceleration. It is greatly disappointing and, frankly, disturbing that Branstad and his administration have chosen to be puppets to a far-left agenda versus being effective educational leaders."
According to the conference website (http://iowasafeschools.org/content/view/13/82/), the mission of the Annual Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth is to a) engage and educate students, educators, parents, community leaders, youth-serving professionals, policy makers, and others concerned about issues relevant to the LGBTQ community, and b) encourage networking and activism to inspire our communities to promote diversity, equality, and social justice. The website also claims goals of eliminating bullying in Iowa schools and creating leadership opportunities for LGBTQ youth.
According to the event's website, about half of the attendees are students. The FAMILY LEADER is particularly disturbed by some of the components of the Governor's Conference noting that special bathroom instructions are provided in the conference FAQ's saying "transgender friendly restrooms will be available for the gender any individual identifies with". Parents can only conclude that their teenage daughter may well be sharing a restroom with a male who "identifies" as a female. Also troubling is the fact that exhibitors are allowed to distribute condoms and/or safe sex kits.
The FAMILY LEADER does not support LGBTQ behavior and believes that a conference of this nature approves, promotes, and accelerates this behavior among students. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), "men who have sex with men and people exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact account for 82% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2006". Therefore, The FAMILY LEADER concludes that this conference is encouraging dangerous and unhealthy behavior while claiming to "provide a safe and supportive place in which to learn" as stated on their website. [...]
Vander Plaats commented on the irony of Branstad's support for a left-wing agenda while former Iowa governors, Vilsack and Culver, chose to remove their title of "Governor" from the annual Governor's Prayer Breakfast. "Vilsack and Culver had no problem upsetting the conservative base when they removed their title from a prayer breakfast, while Branstad surrendered to political pressure and abandoned his alleged conservative principles." "Leaders .... lead," expressed Vander Plaats, "Branstad caved."

Dorman observed,

I particularly love the obligatory expression of "opposition to harassment or bullying of any type within a school setting." That's so thoughtful.
And it's pretty rich, considering that much of the rest of the statement is spent outlining reasons why our family leaders believe strongly that these kids are a danger to society that should be shunned and feared.

Branstad and his staff "laughed when a reporter read Vander Plaats' statement aloud." Of course they did. The governor and several staffers are being sued for allegedly discriminating against an openly gay state official. The FAMiLY Leader just handed them a golden opportunity to show how tolerant they are toward the LGBT community.

Branstad's spokesman Tim Albrecht declined my request for comment on whether the governor's staffer Todd Schultz ever told the FAMiLY Leader's Danny Carroll that the governor was asking to have his title removed from the conference.

The whole episode sounds like something Vander Plaats would want to forget. Instead, he brought it up again in a Valentine's Day press release, phrased as an open letter to Branstad. O.Kay Henderson posted the full text. Excerpts:

As an educator and as a person of faith, I share your goals to eliminate bullying and harassment of any person for any reason. Writing this letter on Valentine's Day is a good reminder of our call to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Our goal at The FAMiLY LEADER is to speak the truth in love. Ironically, the upcoming 7th Annual Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bis*xual, Transgender, Questioning) Youth is exchanging truth for acceptance and tolerance of harmful behavior. As parents, we love our children so much that we do not accept or tolerate his/her desire to play dodge ball in a busy street. If we did, that tolerance could result in serious injury or worse.
In like manner, this is how I view the conference. I have deep love and concern for the 14-18 year old students who will be attending and who may be negatively influenced by the messages they will hear at the conference. And although I may not share their view of God's design for sexuality, I would do everything in my power to prevent their harassment or bullying.
My ongoing concern regarding this conference is the message we are sending to our youth under your title of Governor. I can only assume when you grant the use of your title, Governor, that you approve of the conference and all of its components.
For example, beyond workshops on bullying, there are vendors who will be distributing condoms and "safe" s*x kits. I ask you, "What is the message being communicated to Iowa's youth?"
In addition, the conference claims that in order to provide transgender friendly restrooms, girls will be allowed to use boys' restrooms and boys will be allowed to use the girls' restrooms. It all depends upon "which gender you identify with". Do you think that moms and dads will approve of allowing boys to share restroom facilities with their daughters?
And finally, the keynote speaker is featured in the series, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". Do you really believe that an authentic anti-harassment conference would feature such a "keynote" speaker? [...]
In exchange for the removal of your title from the 7th Annual Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth, I, along with my team at The FAMiLY LEADER, would be willing to join you and your administration in the development of a privately funded, comprehensive safe schools conference with the goal of promoting healthy, safe behavior, and ridding our schools from all bullying and harassment.
This conference would address the harassment that takes place against minority kids, overweight kids, skinny kids, poor kids, disabled kids, red headed kids, kids confused about their s*xuality...ALL kids! This comprehensive approach is especially important since the Iowa Safe Schools bullying statistics show that only about 10% of bullying incidents are related to s*xual orientation, while the remaining 90% are a result of race, physical attributes, and other categories.
Instead of passing out "safe" s*x kits to students, the conference could provide abstinence-based education, emphasizing healthy behavior and the healthy aspects of preventing unwanted pregnancies, STD's, depression, and other problems resulting from sexual activity outside of marriage. [...]
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience to fully discuss our teaming for such a conference. Until then, I will be praying for your leadership that honors God and our youth!

Don't wait by the phone, Bob:

"It is hard these days to take anything seriously that comes from Bob Vander Plaats or the Family Leader," Jeff Boeyink, Branstad's chief of staff said today. "It is sad and attention-seeking, and does nothing to move our state forward."

I didn't think Iowa social conservatives could ever top the idiocy of their "homosexuals are co-opting Valentine's Day" routine from a few years back. I was wrong. This ranks up there with the dumbest things Vander Plaats has said. Maybe this posturing will help him raise money from core supporters of the FAMiLY Leader, but why advertise that no one in the governor's office takes you seriously?

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

Tell us something we don't know about Bob Vander Plaats

desmoinesdem — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:36:39 GMT

You don't have to be a "friend and former adviser on three of Bob Vander Plaats' campaigns" for governor to know what Dan Moore writes in a Des Moines Register guest editorial today. But the assessment packs more of a punch coming from a former close associate:

Bob is obsessed with the gay-marriage issue. He is so obsessed that he would rather see the Iowa judicial system destroyed, instead of pursuing a change in the law within the channels provided (a constitutional amendment).

This post continues below.
In addition to being a former Vander Plaats campaign secretary and treasurer, Moore is a Sioux City attorney and past president of the Iowa State Bar Association. He was active in the Fair Courts for Us coalition that urged Iowans to vote yes on retaining three Supreme Court justices this year. From his Des Moines Register column:

I would like to ask all Iowans to step back and consider the gravity of what is now being proposed by Bob and other anti-court persons. They are suggesting that the four remaining Supreme Court justices be impeached. No justice in the state of Iowa has ever been impeached. Only 13 federal judges have been impeached in the history of the nation, and the impeachment proceedings were all based upon the commission of criminal acts.
The Iowa Supreme Court justices who wrote a unanimous opinion in Varnum committed no crime. [...]
The Iowa judicial branch has been recognized throughout the country as being one of the finest judiciaries in the United States. It has issued thousands of opinions that have been widely regarded as some of the best reasoned and well-thought-out opinions by any state court in the country. Yet because of one man's obsession and desire to remain in the limelight, we are being asked to totally destroy one of the most highly regarded courts in the country on the basis of one politically unpopular decision. [...]
Bob Vander Plaats, who is highly regarded by many conservatives in Iowa, is quite simply wrong to encourage Iowans to support the resignation or impeachment of the remaining four justices of the Iowa Supreme Court. He is grasping at political relevance using daily sound bites of misinformation to intentionally mislead.

I suspect that for Vander Plaats, talk of impeaching the justices is mostly about raising money and staying in the limelight. In 2009 Vander Plaats seemed just as "obsessed" with overturning the Varnum v Brien decision, to the point of advocating an (unconstitutional) executive order to halt same-sex marriages. But even then he stopped short of advocating for impeachment. Now he's got to make a living as the head of the Iowa Family Policy Center's new umbrella organization The Family Leader (or, as he prefers to write, The FAMiLY LEADER). It's too early to raise money on the next set of retention elections, nearly two years away, and the Iowa Family Policy Center will no longer be drawing large federal grants. Vander Plaats' Twitter feed is full of fundraising appeals pegged to ousting the remaining Supreme Court justices. For instance,

I love the wording of that first one: "We are short of our $8,000 goal to restore the integrity of the Iowa Supreme Court. Will you please help us get there?" Only in bizarro world can you "restore the integrity of the Iowa Supreme Court" by criminalizing a disagreement over how to interpret the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Judicial review has been part of American political life for more than 200 years. Now Vander Plaats wants to make a wrongly decided (in his view) unanimous opinion an impeachable offense.

People like Moore wouldn't have to write newspaper editorials if Iowa political leaders ruled out going down this road. Instead, we have a governor-elect who refuses to comment on the proposed impeachment proceedings ("The governor doesn't have a role in that") and Iowa House Republican leaders who sound open to the idea.

There is zero chance the Iowa Senate will convict the Supreme Court justices, even if the Iowa House does pass the impeachment bill three newly-elected representatives are drafting. So Vander Plaats will be able to milk the angry Republican base over this issue for some time.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Is Vander Plaats "obsessed" with gay marriage, just looking for a fundraising hook, or a little of both?

UPDATE: On January 3 Branstad finally spoke out against impeaching the remaining Supreme Court justices:

In a wide-ranging interview, Branstad said he disagreed with the court's marriage ruling but he also disagrees with a band of House Republicans who have indicated they are drafting articles of impeachment against Justices Brent Appel, Mark Cady, Daryl Hecht and David Wiggins. Three other members of court - Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit - ended their terms Dec. 31 after they lost their retention votes in the Nov. 2 general election.
Branstad said he believes the unanimous court "over-reached" when the justices struck down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act he signed in 1998 that defined marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman. The 7-0 ruling in April 2009 had the effect of legalizing civil marriages between couples of the same gender.
"I think if you look and read the Constitution, which I have, I think it's pretty obvious. The Constitution says what the grounds for impeachment are. My reading is it's not there," Branstad said. "There's a difference between malfeasance and over-reaching, I think. I really think that if people look at the Constitution, I think the remedy is that when they come up for retention that people have a chance to vote them out. I think that's the appropriate remedy. I don't think that impeachment is the appropriate remedy."