I missed this story last week, but Ryan Foley didn’t: Governor Terry Branstad is replacing Sheila Tipton with Geri Huser on the Iowa Utilities Board. Not only that, Branstad appointed Huser to chair that three-member board, demoting current Chair Libby Jacobs for the remainder of her term, which runs through April 2017. A recent board ruling that disappointed MidAmerican Energy, an investor-owned utility serving a large area in Iowa, precipitated the governor’s decision.

Details from Foley’s report are after the jump, along with background on Huser and first thoughts on her chances to be confirmed by the Iowa Senate.  

The Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee voted this morning to hold this year’s presidential candidate “straw poll” at the Central Iowa Expo in Boone on August 8. Three other sites were considered: the Iowa State Center in Ames, the Iowa Speedway in Newton, and Drake University in Des Moines. I figured Ames would be rejected to draw a clear line between the much-maligned “Ames Straw Poll” and the future. I figured Drake was out because it is the new home of the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement. The Newton Speedway is relatively accessible from all corners of the state, but Newton lies east of Des Moines area–the “wrong” direction from the perspective of the GOP base. Boone is more geographically central for the Republican activist community. The fact that Governor Terry Branstad used to live in Boone probably didn’t hurt either.

In a press release I’ve enclosed below, Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann said the Boone location will help “showcase” Iowa’s agricultural heritage and “keep ticket prices affordable.” Speaking to reporters this morning, Kaufmann said

“Now comes the brass tacks. Now comes the actual details of how the voting will occur,” Kaufmann said. “How are we going to go about being fair to the candidates who decide to participate? How much we’re going to be aggressive toward sponsors all the way to exactly what is it that we are going to have to charge in order to be fair to the Iowa Republicans that want to attend, but at the same time making sure that our bottom line is guarded.”

I expect this summer’s event will much resemble previous straw polls, perhaps with less of a “winnowing” effect. Poor showings at the 2008 and 2012 straw polls prompted Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to make early exits from the presidential race.

UPDATE: Added below excerpts from Kathie Obradovich’s commentary.

Seeking to address a problem that has grown along with absentee voting, Iowa House Republicans approved a bill yesterday to set new restrictions on which mailed ballots may be counted. Backers said the change would provide more consistency to the system. But the change may not reduce the number of ballots tossed out every election year.

Let’s kick off this open thread with a few links on the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga, which is obsessing the political media. Mother Jones posted the full transcript from Clinton’s press conference yesterday. Excerpts are after the jump. Maggie Haberman posted a good analysis in the New York Times. David Corn’s post on “The Return of the Clinton Media Persecution Complex” was excellent. It’s not encouraging to see the Clintons back in bunker mode against journalists. And while some critics may be exaggerating the significance of this story,

She was a Cabinet official. She had a duty to ensure that her records-which belong to the public, not her-would be controlled by the department, not by her private aides who operate her private server. Moreover, the day she entered Foggy Bottom, she was a potential future presidential contender. […]

So it doesn’t matter what Colin Powell or Condi Rice did with their emails. Put aside Karl Rove’s use of a private GOP party email account when he was a White House official. Hillary Clinton screwed up.

Speaking of screw-ups, the Associated Press ran with a related story that turned out to be false, then covered their tracks by substantially changing the content without issuing an explicit correction. Bad form.

I reject the premise that anything happening in March 2015 will be decisive in November 2016. To my mind, this scandal will only reinforce existing views about the Democratic front-runner. If you’ve always thought Bill and Hillary Clinton are untrustworthy, you have new fodder for that view. And if you’ve always thought Republicans and/or the media go too far in attacking the Clintons, you’ve got more ammunition now. Still, I wish Clinton had used a government e-mail for her official duties, and I wish she had responded to questions on this topic sooner.

What’s on your mind this week, Bleeding Heartland readers?

According to Representative Steve King (R, IA-04), he and other House conservatives are facing “retribution” from House Speaker John Boehner after they insisted that any Homeland Security funding bill must include language against President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

Former State Senator Swati Dandekar appears to be leaning toward another run for Congress in Iowa’s first district, Richard Springer reported for the India West newspaper yesterday. Follow me after the jump for first thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses Dandekar would take into a second Congressional campaign.  

Hillary Clinton plans to hire “as many as 40 staffers” in Iowa sometime next month to work on her presidential campaign, Ben Jacobs reported for The Guardian.

As described to the Guardian, the Clinton campaign will divide Iowa into a number of regions, each with its own regional field director. Past Iowa caucus campaigns have usually featured seven to 10 regions; Obama’s Iowa campaign in 2008 had eight.

A number of top-level Clinton hires already in the works in Iowa have been previously reported. These include Matt Paul, a longtime aide to secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack, to run Clinton’s operation, as well as veteran Iowa operative Brenda Kole as political director and DNC deputy communications director Lily Adams.

The Clinton campaign’s goal in staffing up in Iowa would represent an attempt not only to lock up a Democratic party nomination in next January’s Iowa caucuses but also to use the swing state as a training ground for its field staff in the general election.

Clinton is widely expected to kick off her campaign early in the second quarter of the year. All polling suggests she has no serious competition for the Iowa caucuses, so Democrats have been concerned that a lack of paid organizing this year would leave the Iowa Democratic Party at a disadvantage. As many as a dozen Republican presidential candidates, some of them well-financed, will have staff looking for supporters all over the state before the Iowa caucuses.

The more important question is whether the Clinton campaign will fund a robust field operation during the 2016 general election. Democrats’ hopes of maintaining the Iowa Senate majority, clawing back some ground in the Iowa House, and winning Congressional races in the first and third districts will depend on a much better “coordinated campaign” than we saw in 2014.

Compared to some other swing states, Iowa is relatively inexpensive, which would tilt toward Clinton funding strong GOTV here. On the other hand, the “Big Blue Wall” leaves any Republican presidential candidate in more desperate need of Iowa’s six electoral votes than Clinton ever will be.

Following up on this post from last month, the latest version of a state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman in Iowa is dead for this legislative session. House Joint Resolution 4 didn’t make it so far as a subcommittee hearing, let alone passage by a full committee before the “funnel” deadline late last week.

Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chair Chip Baltimore never assigned the bill to any subcommittee. When I asked him about the status of the bill on February 24 (a month after the bill was introduced), Baltimore’s response was telling.

James Lynch has a scoop tonight: a former field director for Representative Rod Blum’s 2014 campaign plans to run as an independent candidate in Iowa’s first district next year.

Late last week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker rolled out his first batch of prominent Iowa supporters: four Republican state senators and two central Iowa county officials.

The support for Walker follows two recent opinion polls showing him leading the pack of likely presidential candidates among Iowa Republican caucus-goers. If the last presidential campaign is any guide, though, early legislative endorsements tell us nothing about candidate performance on Iowa caucus night.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Confession: I didn’t watch any speeches at the Iowa Agriculture Summit. I followed some through many people’s tweets and caught up on the rest through Pat Rynard’s liveblog at Iowa Starting Line. As expected, given the background of moderator and organizer Bruce Rastetter, the event was no non-partisan issue forum. The audience for this “informercial for agribusiness” was overwhelmingly Republican, and some Democrats who wanted to attend were turned away at the door.

I enjoyed one person’s comment on the “twilight zone trifecta”: watching a parade of Republicans profess their love for government mandates (the Renewable Fuels Standard), subsidies, and science. The same person observed that the summit was “a textbook course on cognitive dissonance as hatred for @EPA clashes w/ begging them for #RFS mandates.” Speaking of cognitive dissonance, how about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckbee (an ordained Christian minister) criticizing immigrants who come to this country for free “goodies” and “a bowl of food.”

Former Iowa Secretary of Agriculture and Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge was the only Democrat to accept Rastetter’s invitation to speak at the event. Rynard saw that as a “missed opportunity” for other Democrats, but I believe there is little upside to validating Rastetter as some kind of neutral authority or referee. He isn’t, and he never will be. Judge was reportedly well-received, probably because she’s not running for any political office again.

Some important problems facing Iowa farmers didn’t come up much, if at all, in Rastetter’s Q&A format. Soil erosion is not only a major factor in water pollution but also a costly trend for the agricultural sector. Rick Cruse of Iowa State University has researched the economic costs of soil loss and the associated impact on crop yields. Iowans who wanted to learn about those issues were better off attending a different event in Des Moines on March 7: the Raccoon River Watershed Association’s ninth annual Iowa Water Quality conference. Excerpts from Ben Rodgers’ report for the Des Moines Register are after the jump.

Final related note: on Friday, Sena Christian profiled four women farmers who are “stepping up to sustain the land.” One of them is LaVon Griffieon of Ankeny, a superstar whom I’m proud to call a friend. Click through to read Christian’s post at Civil Eats.

Ten potential Republican presidential candidates will speak at Bruce Rastetter’s Iowa Agriculture Summit today, and a few more may send videotaped remarks. But only one GOP contender was the focus of a long and flattering feature by the Des Moines Register’s chief political correspondent the day before the event.

When Jeb Bush hired longtime Iowa GOP consultant David Kochel, I figured friendly coverage in the Register would be coming to the former Florida governor. During last year’s U.S. Senate campaign, just about every line Joni Ernst’s backers wanted out there ended up in some Des Moines Register piece by Jennifer Jacobs. Still, Jacobs’ spread on Bush in Friday’s Des Moines Register shocked me. The message could hardly have been more perfectly tailored for Iowa Republicans if Bush’s spin doctors had written it themselves.

State Senator Matt McCoy has confirmed that he may seek the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. At least two other Democrats are thinking about challenging first-term Representative David Young as well.

Someone is paying to test a series of negative messages about Hillary Clinton among Iowa Democrats. Our household received a call from a Michigan-based polling firm last night. The interviewer asked for my husband by name, indicating that the pollster was working from a list of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers or reliable voters. After typical likely voter screening questions, a ballot test among Democratic candidates, and a few statements about President Barack Obama, most of the the poll focused on unflattering messages about Hillary Clinton. My notes are after the jump. Some messages appear multiple times, because there was quite a bit of repetition in the survey.

I haven’t been able to identify who paid for this poll, but I’m confident it didn’t come from Clinton’s inner circle or any group supporting her presidential ambitions. Unlike two other recent polls of Iowa Democrats, which Bleeding Heartland covered here and Iowa Starting Line covered here, this survey tested almost no positive statements about Clinton or her record. Then again, Pat Rynard suspects the Clinton campaign did commission this poll, citing similarities to the call he received last month.

In theory, a group favoring a different Democratic candidate for president would want to test lines of attack against Hillary. But to my ear, this poll sounded like the work of a Republican or conservative advocacy group. The questionnaire didn’t include any positive messages about any other potential Democratic candidates. Near the beginning of the survey, my husband was asked about his first and second choice if the Iowa caucuses were held today. But after the laundry list of negative statements about Clinton, the poll didn’t repeat the ballot test to see whether respondents now would be inclined to caucus for Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Martin O’Malley over Clinton. (I don’t think Jim Webb was included.)

I don’t know how long this poll has been in the field, but the questionnaire must have been finalized before this week, because there were no questions about Clinton using her personal e-mail account for work during her tenure as secretary of state.

UPDATE: Maybe this poll originated within the Clinton circle after all. Patrick Ruffini pointed out that the call my household received came from the same phone number as polling calls backing the Democratic candidate in a New York Congressional race last year. If the survey firm mainly works for Democrats, then Clinton’s team or a group supporting her aspirations must be behind the poll. No rival Democratic candidate would have paid for a lengthy questionnaire including zero positive messages about alternatives to Clinton.

MARCH 10 UPDATE: According to the latest edition of HuffPollster, “many reports of calls from 586-200-0157 from recipients nationwide who were told they had been called by Mountain West Research, a call center used as subcontractor by campaign pollsters.” Several past Democratic candidates have used the firm.

The U.S. House approved $8 billion in funding for Amtrak passenger rail on Wednesday. Keith Lang and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

Since its inception in 1971, Amtrak has historically received about $1 billion per year from the government for operations and construction projects.

The measure would authorize about $982 million per year for the company’s national network and another $470 million annually for its popular Northeast U.S. routes.

The bill, which would expire in 2019, sets another $300 million per year for construction on Amtrak routes in the rest of country and about $24 million per year for the company’s inspector general.

All 184 Democrats present voted yes, including Iowa’s Dave Loebsack (IA-02). But as the 316 to 101 roll call shows, more than 100 House conservatives voted against the Amtrak bill, including Iowa’s Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04).

Young should know better. Currently, the only Amtrak routes across Iowa travel through the southern part of the state, calling at stations in the third and second Congressional districts. (King used to represent some of those southwest Iowa counties, but he hasn’t since the last redistricting.) Anyway, Young has lived on the east coast long enough to understand how important passenger rail is for the U.S. transportation system.  

As expected, the U.S. Senate failed yesterday to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill that would clear the way for building the Keystone XL pipeline. Supporters of the bill managed 62 votes, five short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted yes, along with all of their Republican colleagues and eight Democrats (roll call). Republicans will now try to attach the Keystone language to some bill the president won’t want to veto. Laura Barron-Lopez reported for The Hill,

“If we don’t win the battle today, we will win the war, because we will attach it to another piece of legislation,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who wrote the bill, said Wednesday.

Hoeven said Republicans are likely to try to attach the legislation to a long-term transportation funding bill. Congress faces a May 31 deadline to approve new transportation funding.

“This is coming back in the form an infrastructure bill, a road bill that we are all voting for,” said Manchin.

Keystone supporters are optimistic that Obama won’t veto a six-year highway bill if it includes Keystone, despite vows by the president to veto any attempt to circumvent the federal review process of the pipeline.

If attaching Keystone to a transpiration bill doesn’t work, supporters say, they will try to link it to a broader energy package.

That sounds like a good strategy. I suspect Keystone XL is a price Obama would be willing to pay for a long-term transportation funding bill. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

At least 40,000 Iowans are in danger of losing their health insurance later this year, and not only because of the King v Burwell case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of how justices decide that case, Iowans could lose access to federal subsidies they need to buy insurance policies.

State legislators and Governor Terry Branstad could eliminate the risk by working together to establish a fully state-run health insurance exchange this year. But for reasons I can’t comprehend, I see no sense of urgency to prevent a potentially devastating outcome for thousands of families.  

A bill funding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through September 30 is headed to the White House, stripped of language intended to undermine President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Details on the voting and procedural maneuvers are after the jump, along with reaction from some of the Iowans in Congress.

Representative Steve King (IA-04) has repeatedly posted this image of a fish trap to convey his view that House Republicans played into a scheme to legalize what he calls Obama’s “amnesty.” In his press release, he asserted that “The White House is having a fish fry.”

Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Joe Bolkcom has introduced a bill to make medical marijuana more broadly available to Iowans suffering from life-threatening or chronic illnesses. Senate Study Bill 1243 would allow the possession and use of medical cannabis (not just the cannabis oil derivative legalized last year) for any of the following “debilitating medical conditions”: cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, AIDS or HIV, glaucoma, hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (often known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), Ehlers-danlos syndrome, or post-traumatic stress syndrome. Scroll to the end of this post for a detailed summary of the bill.

The latest Des Moines Register poll by Selzer & Co indicates that 70 percent of Iowans favor allowing medical marijuana use. Yet Iowa’s new law allowing cannabis oil treatments has yet to benefit a single patient. Nevertheless, persuading Iowa House Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad to legalize marijuana for additional medical conditions may be an uphill battle. Follow me after the jump for more background on this issue, and excerpts from recent testimony before members of the Iowa Senate.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to members of Congress this morning, covering the expected ground about U.S.-Israeli relations and the danger posed by negotiating with Iran. Yesterday President Barack Obama defended his administration’s policies and suggested that events had disproved Netanyahu’s warnings about the 2013 agreement designed to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Obama isn’t planning to meet with Netanyahu during this Washington trip because of the Israeli election happening later this month.

At least 50 Congressional Democrats skipped today’s speech, mainly because Republicans had invited Netanyahu to speak without working through White House channels. Furthermore, many people feel it’s inappropriate for the U.S. Congress to appear to support one political party leader two weeks before an Israeli election. Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference yesterday, Netanyahu disingenuously said, “The last thing anyone who cares about Israel, the last thing that I would want, is for Israel to become a partisan issue.” Which of course has been the entirely predictable outcome of this episode. For that reason, this Jewish blogger is among the roughly half of Americans who disapprove of Republican leaders inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress.

All of the Iowa Republicans in Congress attended today’s speech. I’ve enclosed some of their comments below and will update this post as needed. UPDATE: Representative Steve King (IA-04) put his reaction on YouTube.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) watched the speech from his office. I enclose below his statement, explaining his views on U.S.-Israeli relations and his reasons for staying away from the “spectacle.” I support his position 100 percent. The Republican Party of Iowa accused Loebsack of insulting “America’s ally” by not hearing the prime minister’s thoughts. But Loebsack did listen to what Netanyahu had to say–from an appropriate distance. Incidentally, House Minority Nancy Pelosi commented that while listening to Netanyahu this morning, she was “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States.”

U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch appears likely to be confirmed as the next attorney general after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, but both of Iowa’s U.S. senators will oppose her confirmation. Senator Chuck Grassley voted against Lynch on the Judiciary Committee, saying she had not convinced him that she “will lead the department in a different direction” from outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. In a statement I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley said that as “the nation’s top law enforcement officer,” the attorney general’s job is “not to be the President’s ‘wingman.'” He then cited several news headlines about Lynch defending President Barack Obama’s executive orders halting deportations for some undocumented immigrants.

Today Senator Joni Ernst confirmed that she will also vote against confirming Lynch. O.Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa,

“I have some very serious concerns with Loretta Lynch,” Ernst says, “especially during her testimony when she had stated that she does uphold what the president has done and his decisions, especially when it comes to executive amnesty.”

Late last week, Ernst and Grassley voted against the “clean” bill to continue funding the Department of Homeland Security, stripped of language opposing Obama’s immigration policies.

Three Republican senators (Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Flake) voted to forward Lynch’s nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. Assuming all 46 Democrats are present for her confirmation vote, she will need only one more GOP supporter to reach the 60-vote threshold.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Iowa’s U.S. Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Rod Blum (IA-01) signed a letter urging Senate Judiciary Committee members to reject Lynch. To my knowledge, Representative David Young (IA-03) did not sign the letter.

The proposed Bakken pipeline is one of the most urgent issues facing Iowa’s environmental community. The Texas-based company Energy Transfer Partners wants to build the pipeline to transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois, crossing eighteen Iowa counties in the process. Governor Terry Branstad has made clear he won’t support any legislative action to stop the pipeline. That will leave the initial decision up to the Iowa Utilities Board, though approval by other state and federal agencies would be needed later; more details on that are below.

Two dozen non-profit groups have formed a coalition to fight the pipeline. You can keep up with their work on Facebook or at the No Bakken website. I’m active with several of the coalition members and enclosed the full list after the jump. The Sierra Club’s Iowa chapter outlined some of the key concerns concisely and explained how members of the public can submit comments.

Former state legislator Ed Fallon, who ran for governor in 2006 and for Congress in 2008, is kicking off a 400-mile walk along the proposed pipeline route today, starting from southeast Iowa and heading northwest over the next several weeks. I’ve enclosed below an excerpt from his first e-mail update about the walk, in which Fallon recounts a conversation with Lee County farmers whose land lies along the proposed pipeline route. Click here to view upcoming events, including a public meetings for residents of Lee County this evening, for Van Buren County residents in Birmingham on March 5, and for Jefferson County residents in Fairfield on March 6.

The latest Iowa poll conducted by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics found that a majority of Iowans support the Bakken pipeline, but a larger majority oppose using eminent domain to seize land for the pipeline. Excerpts from the Iowa poll findings are at the end of this post.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – The company that wants to build the pipeline has claimed “the project would have an Iowa economic impact of $1.1 billion during two years of construction, creating enough work to keep 7,600 workers employed for a year.” Economist Dave Swenson explained here why such estimates are misleading.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?  This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

I haven’t been watching this year’s freakshow CPAC convention, but I was struck by Senator Chuck Grassley posting a photo of himself smiling and shaking hands with Oliver North at the event. For those not old enough to remember the 1980s, North was an important figure in the Iran-Contra affair (brief history here). As a little-known National Security Council official in the Reagan administration, North diverted funds from arms sales to the Iranian regime to supply anti-Communist fighters in Nicaragua. He lied to Congress about the policy and responded to an investigation “By stuffing many documents into a shredder and sneaking out others in his secretary’s dress.” His felony convictions for destroying classified documents and obstructing Congress were vacated because of technicalities: specifically, questions about whether Congressional hearings before his prosecution had tainted the proceedings. There was never any credible case that North hadn’t committed those crimes.

Why would North appeal to a guy like Grassley, self-styled advocate of strong Congressional oversight of the executive branch? How was the policy to supply weapons to the hostile Iranian regime substantively different from those by officials in the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms who carried out the “Operation Fast and Furious” gunwalking scheme? How were Oliver North’s actions substantively different from those of Justice Department officials under Attorney General Eric Holder, whom Grassley has excoriated for not cooperating with the Congressional investigation into Fast and Furious?

Speaking of Grassley, here’s some unintentional comedy from the senator’s Twitter feed on February 15: “Every republican senator but one wants to debate Homeland Security bill that will block Obama immigration but Dems filibuster Why not vote?”

Great question. Democrats should answer right after Grassley explains why he and his Republican colleagues didn’t let the Senate vote on the DREAM Act and repeatedly blocked campaign finance disclosure rules that were favored by the entire Democratic caucus.

Funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been bogged down in a dispute over how far Congressional Republicans should go to overturn President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. The rest of the federal government is funded through the end of this fiscal year (September 30), under a deal the previous House and Senate members approved in December. But conservatives held up funding for Homeland Security to preserve leverage for the new Congress.

Last night, a partial shutdown of the department was averted when senators approved a one-week funding measure and House members followed suit. Whether a majority can be found next week for a longer-term bill remains unclear.

Iowa’s own Steve King (R, IA-04) has been beating the drum for weeks urging conservatives not to give in and pass a “clean” Homeland Security funding bill. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have been less vocal about the matter, but they opposed the clean bill approved by a majority of senators yesterday (which didn’t come to a House vote).

Follow me after the jump for details on where the Iowans stood on all the recent Congressional votes related to this standoff.

Many Iowa GOP activists are upset that dozens of House and Senate Republicans voted to increase the gasoline tax this week. WHO drive-time radio host Simon Conway has been bashing some legislators who voted for the gas tax hike. He’s also urging listeners to “ditch the GOP” by changing their party registration.

Such symbolic acts mean little to compared to what Eric Durbin did yesterday. Appearing on Conway’s Thursday afternoon broadcast, he announced that he will challenge nine-term incumbent GOP State Representative Clel Baudler in Iowa House district 20. Durbin narrowly lost the GOP primary in House district 26 last year, but he recently moved his family from Indianola to a farm in Baudler’s district. His campaign is on Facebook here; at this writing, the website still lists House district 26, which covers most of Warren County. I assume that will be changed soon. Durbin’s core issues hit many of the top priorities for conservatives.

House district 20 covers Guthrie and Adair counties, plus parts of Dallas and Cass counties. A detailed map is after the jump. According to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, House district 20 contains 4,629 active registered Democrats, 6,471 Republicans, and 7,490 no-party voters. Although Mitt Romney just barely carried this district in the 2012 presidential election, Baudler was re-elected by more than a 2,000 vote margin that year and last November. For those reasons, Baudler is probably at more risk from a primary challenger than from a Democrat in the next general election.

Among the longest-serving Iowa House Republicans, Baudler was first been elected in 1998. He has chaired the House Public Safety Committee since 2011. Although he’s a longtime member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, Baudler drew the ire of some Iowa gun rights activists by not advancing a gun bill during the 2012 legislative session. Nevertheless, he didn’t face a primary challenger either that year or in 2014. The Iowa Gun Owners group will likely get behind Durbin’s primary challenge. I wonder whether anti-tax groups like Iowans for Tax Relief and Americans for Prosperity will do much to punish the incumbents who went against them on the gas tax issue.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

An e-mail appearing to come from the sender “Stop Steve King” popped up in my in-box this week. I opened it, wondering whether a Democratic candidate was ready to announce already in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. King’s last challenger, Jim Mowrer, raised a huge amount of money in 2013 and last year, partly through mass e-mails coming from “Stop Steve King” or “Stop Steve King 2014.” Getting voters to read messages from political campaigns is increasingly challenging, and “clickbait” subject headings don’t always do the trick. Of all Iowa Republicans, King is probably the most hated by Democrats.    

As it turned out, the February 24 “Stop Steve King” message wasn’t from a potential challenger in IA-04. New Blue Interactive sent it on behalf of Monica Vernon’s Congressional campaign in Iowa’s first district. The e-mail urged recipients to sign a petition demanding that Congress fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a “clean” bill, not including “anti-immigration amendments.” Clicking through the embedded link takes you to a petition page titled, “Tell the Tea Party to stop playing games with our national security!” Vernon’s opponent, Representative Rod Blum, is mentioned as standing in lock-step with King, House Speaker John Boehner, and “tea party” Republicans. I’ve enclosed screenshots of the mass e-mail and the petition after the jump.

Within the House GOP caucus, King has been one of the loudest voices demanding that Congress use the Homeland Security funding measure to make a point on immigration policy. Blum has indicated that he also supports using the Homeland Security budget bill to withhold funding from programs related to the President Barack Obama’s executive orders granting temporary legal status to some undocumented immigrants. In Blum’s view, holding the line on this matter “will not impact national security” because even after current funding expires at the end of February, “85 percent of the federal employees funded through Homeland Security are deemed essential and will continue work without pay until the funding issue is resolved.”

So it seems fair for Vernon’s campaign to lump Blum in with King and other Republicans engaging in brinksmanship over Homeland Security funding. Clearly “Stop Steve King” will catch the eye of many more Democrats than “Stop Rod Blum” or “Vernon for Congress.” Whether this exercise in list-building will eventually translate into lots of new donors or volunteers for Vernon is anyone’s guess.

Any comments about the race in IA-01 are welcome in this thread.

When hackers attacked the major health insurance company Anthem earlier this month, the ensuing data breach may have affected 172,727 Iowans, the Iowa Insurance Division announced today.

Any Iowan impacted by this cyber-attack will be contacted by Anthem and identity theft repair services are available.  Affected Iowans may also sign up for additional free services which include credit monitoring services and a free identity theft insurance policy.

“The Iowa Insurance Division is working with Anthem and regulators in other states to monitor this situation and we will continue to update Iowans as we learn more,” [Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick] Gerhart said.  “In addition to the identity repair assistance Anthem is offering by telephone, I would strongly recommend any Iowans affected by this cyber-attack to sign up for all of the additional protections being offered to help remedy the situation.”

Affected Iowans should visit https://anthem.allclearid.com or call 1-877-263-7995 to sign up for the additional protections provided by Anthem.  For more information visit https://www.anthemfacts.com.

When news first broke about the cyber-attack, I never would have guessed that more than 5 percent of Iowans could be affected. Residents of fourteen other states where Anthem operates were even more likely to be victims, as this crime may have compromised personal data of 60 million to 80 million people nationwide. FBI officials claimed earlier this week that the investigation has made progress identifying the hackers, but few details are publicly available.

While the gasoline tax increase grabbed most of the attention, the Iowa Senate approved two other significant bills on Tuesday. Senate File 270 would combat Iowa’s wage theft problem, estimated to cost workers about $600 million annually. After the jump I’ve enclosed State Senator Bill Dotzler’s opening remarks on the bill, which cover its key provisions. Victims of wage theft testified at an Iowa Senate hearing in late January, and when you hear their stories, it’s hard to understand why this remains a partisan issue.

It makes sense when you read the lobbyist declarations on the bill, showing various labor groups in favor and business groups opposed (including the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Iowa Retail Federation, the Iowa Grocery Association, and the Iowa Propane Gas Association). During the Senate Labor and Business Committee’s hearing on wage theft, GOP Senator Rick Bertrand had criticized the idea of forcing more “paperwork” on all Iowa businesses because a minority are stealing wages from workers. Democrats later incorporated some amendments suggested by Bertrand. Nevertheless, the final vote on Senate File 270 was strictly partisan, with 26 Democrats in favor and 23 Republicans against. Senators approved a similar bill last year, also along party lines. It died in the Iowa House.

Senate File 269, which would raise Iowa’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.00 this year and to $8.75 next year, cleared the Iowa Senate on February 24 as well. This time Bertrand joined the 26 Democrats in voting for the bill; the other 22 Republicans who were present opposed it. For the last couple of years, many Democrats nationally and in Iowa have endorsed a minimum wage of $10.10.  I assume Senate File 269 set a lower goal in the hope of attracting bipartisan support, but I would have stuck with $10.10. Not only is that closer to a living wage, it’s closer to the purchasing power of Iowa’s minimum wage the last time it was raised in early 2007.

Incidentally, only three of the current Iowa Senate Republicans were in the legislature when Iowa last raised the minimum wage in 2007. Of those, David Johnson voted for raising the minimum wage to $7.25, while Brad Zaun and Jerry Behn voted against it.

Republican statehouse leaders have no interest in raising the minimum wage now, but when a minimum wage increase came to a vote in 2007, it passed with huge bipartisan majorities in both chambers. At that time, supporters included nine current Iowa House Republicans: Kraig Paulsen (now Iowa House Speaker), Linda Upmeyer (now Iowa House Majority Leader), Clel Baudler, Dave Deyoe, Cecil Dolecheck, Jack Drake, Dan Huseman, Linda Miller and Dawn Pettengill (she was a House Democrat at that time but switched to the Republican Party later in 2007). Seven of the current Iowa House Republicans voted against raising the minimum wage to $7.25 in 2007: Greg Forristall, Pat Grassley, Tom Sands, Chuck Soderberg, Ralph Watts, Matt Windschitl, and Gary Worthan.  

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Several recent tragedies in the Des Moines area have been on my mind this week. Last Friday, a body was found in Water Work Park, later identified as Richard Miles, a Iraq War veteran who had been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after three deployments. He had sought in-patient help at the VA hospital in Des Moines on February 15, but was sent home with medication. He disappeared two days later. U.S. Senator Joni Ernst has written to the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs seeking a federal investigation into Miles’ case and more generally the mental health programs of the Veterans Affairs Central Iowa Health Care System.

After the jump I’ve posted a list of mental health resources available to veterans, as well as a timeline and statement that Miles’ friends released this week.

Two girls who attended Urbandale Middle School committed suicide within a week of each other. One was 12 years old and in sixth grade; the other 14 years old and in eighth grade. Police haven’t found evidence of bullying in the first case and are investigating the second case. The sixth-grader’s father has urged parents “to monitor their children’s social media activity and for others to speak out if they see anything unusual on a friend’s account.” I’ve enclosed more of his comments below.

Child psychiatrist Dr. Donner Dewdney encourages parents to watch closely for sign of depression in their children, and to talk to teens specifically about alternatives to suicide.

Here are some resources and hotline numbers for Iowans of any age who are experiencing suicidal thoughts. Many resources for children or teenagers who have experienced the death of a friend or close relative are available here and here.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

As expected, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have forced approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. In his message to Congress, Obama said the bill “conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment.”  

Republican leaders will attempt to override the veto, but those efforts will almost certainly fail, since the bill didn’t muster a two-thirds majority in either the House or the Senate. The next likely step is for Congressional Republicans to attach language on Keystone XL to some other “must-pass” bill. I am concerned that under those conditions, language on the pipeline would not be a deal-breaker for Obama.

All four Iowans in the U.S. House supported the Keystone XL bill, as did Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst. I haven’t seen any official comment on the veto from Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), David Young (IA-03), or Steve King (IA-04). After the jump I’ve posted the full text of the president’s veto message, along with reaction from Grassley and Ernst. I will update as needed.

This morning Governor Terry Branstad signed Senate File 257, which raises the state gasoline tax by 10 cents a gallon and includes several other provisions related to transportation funding, permit fees, and fuel taxes. The Iowa House and Senate just approved the bill yesterday, with substantial bipartisan support and opposition in both chambers.

Gas tax revenues go into Iowa’s Road Use Tax Fund, which distributes money among state, county and local governments according to a set formula. Because Iowa lawmakers did not incorporate any  “fix it first” language in Senate File 257, I remain concerned that the bulk of the new money will be spent on new road construction or building new lanes on existing roads, rather than on fixing the crumbling infrastructure that was cited to justify this tax increase. Branstad already signaled as much this morning:

Branstad said having the tax hike go into effect March 1 means the state will collect more fuel taxes than expected in the last four months of the state fiscal year – and the starting date for some road and bridge projects may be moved up.

“Highway 20 is one of those that has been around for a long time and we want to see that completed and moved up,” Branstad said, “and this is a way that hopefully that and other key projects can get priority and be expedited.”

The project to expand all 300 miles of the Highway 20 route from Dubuque and Sioux City into a divided four-lane highway began 50 years ago. Branstad told reporters this morning that he’s recently talked with the Iowa DOT’s director about speeding up the Highway 20 project.

Current Road Use Tax Fund revenues fall an estimated $215 million short of what Iowa needs annually to maintain existing infrastructure. According to the fiscal note produced by the non-partisan Legislative Services Agency, Senate File 257 will bring in a little more than $200 million in additional funds each year for the next several years. Money spent on new roads or new lanes on roads like Highway 20 won’t help us catch up with ongoing maintenance needs. How many structurally deficient bridges won’t be fixed because four-laning Highway 20 was expedited? The same dynamic could play out in many counties and local governments too, because new roads or road expansions are often seen as better economic development than fixing a road or bridge that’s in bad shape.

A bill that would raise Iowa’s gasoline tax by 10 cents a gallon is on its way to Governor Terry Branstad’s desk after approval today by both chambers in the Iowa legislature. The Iowa Senate passed Senate File 257 this morning by 28 votes to 21. Sixteen Democrats and twelve Republicans voted for the bill, while ten Democrats and eleven Republicans opposed it. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal had reportedly insisted on at least half the GOP caucus supporting a gas tax increase as a condition for bringing the bill to the floor.

A few hours later, the Iowa House took up the Senate bill (rather than the bill that cleared two House committees last week). Thirty Republicans and 23 Democrats voted yes, while 26 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted no.

Only two state legislators missed today’s votes: Republican State Senator Mark Chelgren and Republican State Representative Chip Baltimore. Baltimore voted against the House version of this bill in committee last week, while Chelgren doesn’t serve on the committees that approved the bill in the Senate. Chelgren appears to have been absent for all of today’s votes, while Baltimore was at the Capitol but left the chamber when the gas tax bill came up. Speaking to reporters later, he tried to make a virtue out of his absence: “I refuse to legitimize either the bill or the process with a vote.” Weak sauce from a guy who is widely expected to seek higher office someday.

Conservative groups are urging Branstad to veto Senate File 257, but that seems unlikely, given the governor’s recent comments on road funding. Branstad’s spokesman said today that the governor will carefully review the final bill before deciding whether to sign it.  

After the jump I’ve enclosed the roll call votes in both chambers, as well as Senate Transportation Committee Chair Tod Bowman’s opening remarks this morning, which summarize key points in Senate File 257.

Final note: several of the “no” votes came from lawmakers who may face competitive re-election campaigns in 2016. Those include Democrats Chris Brase (Senate district 46), Steve Sodders (Senate district 36), and Mary Jo Wilhelm (Senate district 26), and Republicans Dennis Guth (Senate district 4) and Amy Sinclair (Senate district 14).

Philip Bump of the Washington Post called attention to something that sets Senator Chuck Grassley apart from all of his colleagues in Congress. Iowa’s senior senator has not missed a roll-call vote since the summer of 1993, when he was touring flooded areas in Iowa with President Bill Clinton. The only person with a realistic chance to match his streak of more than 7,000 consecutive votes over more than two decades is Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who has participated in nearly 6,000 consecutive roll calls over more than 15 years. No other current member of the U.S. House or Senate has gone even five years without missing a roll-call vote.

Everyone can admire Grassley’s dedication to showing up for work. How he votes on all those bills and resolutions could be improved, though. After the jump I’ve enclosed highlights from the Progressive Punch scoring of Grassley’s voting record. In a dozen different issue categories, he goes against the progressive position at least 95 percent of the time. Grassley may be considered an establishment figure compared to some of the GOP’s “tea party” heroes, but he is no moderate and never has been.

In other Grassley-related news, the Senate Judiciary Committee chair was mentioned in this article about a new left-meets-right coalition seeking to “reduce mandatory sentences, lower prison populations, and re-evaluate the war on drugs in the states.”

Advocates already have a raft of bipartisan legislation to push forward. Last week, a bipartisan group of senators led by Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Utah Republican Mike Lee re-introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, a bill heavily favored by advocates on both sides of the aisle. They’re up against Republican leaders like Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, who has said he’s not interested in any legislation that reduces mandatory minimum sentences.

You don’t have to be a liberal to recognize that mandatory minimum sentences “contribute to prison overcrowding, irrational sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing, and exorbitant criminal justice costs,” not to mention some absurdly disproportionate punishments for non-violent crimes. Here’s hoping some conservatives can talk Grassley into opening his mind on this issue. He certainly won’t listen to progressives.

February has been a busy month for possible Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa. This thread is for any comments related to next year’s Iowa caucuses. Here are a few links to get the conversation started.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign (or some group close to Clinton) appears to be message-testing Iowa Democrats. Pat Rynard was a respondent in the latest survey, and the questions had a lot in common with the poll Bleeding Heartland wrote up here. One noticeable difference: the new poll hints at a strong focus on paid family and sick leave if Clinton runs for president.

NBC/Marist released the latest poll of Iowa Democrats, showing Clinton way ahead with 68 percent support. Vice President Joe Biden was a distant second place with 12 percent, though that poll did not ask respondents about Senator Elizabeth Warren. In hypothetical general election match-ups, Clinton leads former Florida Governor Jeb Bush by 48 percent to 40 percent in Iowa, and leads Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker by 49 percent to 38 percent.

The vice president stopped in central Iowa earlier this month. After meeting briefly with Governor Terry Branstad, Biden visited the Des Moines Area Community College, where he touted free community college tuition. Speaking at Drake University, Biden encouraged Democratic candidates to run on the Obama administration’s record in 2016. Playing for laughs, the Des Moines Register’s coverage focused on “great Joe Biden-isms.”. (For what it’s worth, where Jason Noble heard Biden calling former Representative Neal Smith his “old butt buddy,” to my ear it sounded more like a mini-stutter: “an old bud- buddy.”) Pat Rynard’s write-up was more substantive, and I tend to agree with his conclusion: Biden didn’t sound like a future presidential candidate at Drake.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders just finished a three-day swing through Iowa. He spoke to supporters at Iowa City’s Prairie Lights book store, talked to students at Drake and the University of Iowa, headlined the Iowa Citizen Action Network’s annual dinner in Johnston, spoke in Cedar Rapids and Tipton, and finally was the start guest at the Story County Democrats’ soup dinner in Ames. Sanders continues to highlight his key issues of economic inequality and money in politics. At several of his Iowa stops he also called on Republicans not to tie Department of Homeland Security funding to rolling back President Barack Obama’s immigration policies. He has yet to indicate whether he might run for president as a Democrat or as an independent.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley hasn’t been to Iowa this month, but he’ll headline events for the Scott County Democrats in March and the Polk County Democrats in April.

Finally, Iowa Starting Line has kicked off a series of posts on how Democratic presidential candidates can win key counties in Iowa. Author Rynard has worked on various campaigns in different parts of the state. The first two installments focused on Clinton County and Woodbury County.  

Ever since I saw how few Iowa House Republicans are still co-sponsoring a state constitutional amendment on marriage, I’ve been watching and waiting for Republicans in the state Senate to introduce their version of the same legislation. Any effort to overturn marriage equality will be a dead letter in the Iowa Senate as long as Democrats maintain their majority. Nevertheless, I was curious to see how many (or few) Republican senators are still willing to stand up and be counted on this issue.

Late last week, State Senator Dennis Guth, one of the leading social conservatives in the chamber, finally introduced Senate Joint Resolution 6, “specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state.” Just eleven of the 24 Republicans are co-sponsoring this amendment. That’s a significant drop from two years ago, when three-quarters of the Iowa Senate GOP caucus co-sponsored the marriage amendment.

Looking more closely at who is and is not “loud and proud” about taking rights away from LGBT couples, some patterns emerge.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center have uncovered damning evidence that fossil fuels companies paid a scholar to produce research casting doubt on whether human activity is causing climate change. Justin Gillis and John Schwartz report for the New York Times that Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Now that NBC News has suspended anchor Brian Williams for six months over untruthful accounts of his experience as an embedded reporter in Iraq, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is under a new level of scrutiny. He has falsely claimed to have reported on the Falklands War from a “war zone” and now won’t answer questions about the matter. Journalist Eric Jon Engberg remembers things differently from O’Reilly. Excerpts from his account are after the jump. I will be shocked if Fox News disciplines one of its stars. UPDATE: Multiple former CBS correspondents have spoken out to “challenge O’Reilly’s depiction of Buenos Aires as a ‘war zone’ and a ‘combat situation.’ They also doubt his description of a CBS cameraman being injured in the chaos.”

The Des Moines Register’s chief politics correspondent Jennifer Jacobs published a story on Friday headlined, “Joni Ernst targeted by hoax ‘news’ reports.” Her primary example was this post on the National Report website, titled “Joni Ernst: Vaccines Should Be Outlawed As They ‘Manipulate Brains,’ Make People More Liberal.” Many people circulated the vaccine story on social media, unaware that it came from a satirical website. But satire is not the same thing as a hoax. A “hoax ‘news’ report” is more like when Jacobs used her position at the Des Moines Register to suggest that Bruce Braley had claimed to be a farmer–a charge that played into Republican campaign narratives but made no sense to anyone who had ever heard Braley’s stump speeches or read his official bio.  

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a District Court ruling that held a man responsible for a speeding ticket issued under Sioux City’s Automated Traffic Enforcement Ordinance. You can read Justice Brent Appel’s whole decision here (pdf). Michael Jacobsma employed several legal arguments in his suit challenging the speeding ticket:

The defendant sought dismissal of the citation on constitutional grounds, claiming enforcement of the ordinance violated the Due Process Clauses of the Iowa and Federal Constitutions, the inalienable rights clause of the Iowa Constitution, and the Iowa municipal home rule amendment that prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that conflict with state law.

Pages 2 through 7 cover background on Sioux City’s ordinance, Jacobsma’s ticket, and his legal challenge. Pages 7 through 23 explore the extensive federal and state case law on due process challenges against similar ordinances. Key points: the ordinance allows vehicle owners to present evidence indicating that they were not driving at the time of the alleged traffic violation, but Jacobsma never did so. Furthermore, since this case involves only civil penalties (a fine) rather than criminal penalties, there is less of a burden on the government to prove Jacobsma was operating the vehicle when it was traveling at 67 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone.

Pages 24 through 32 address Jacobsma’s claim that the presumption in the Sioux City traffic camera ordinance violates his “inalienable rights” under the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. After going through lots of court rulings on inalienable rights clauses, Appel notes that many “cases hold that liberty or property rights enumerated in the inalienable rights clauses of state constitutions are subject to reasonable regulations in the public interest.” The Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed, “there is no doubt that the regulation to control speeding on state highways gives rise to a public interest generally.”

Pages 33 through 35 address Jacobsma’s claim that the Sioux City ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law. Here the controlling case law is Davenport v Seymour, a 2008 Iowa Supreme Court decision also authored by Appel. That ruling upheld the city of Davenport’s use of traffic cameras. Today’s ruling concludes that Sioux City’s rules on tickets issued by traffic cameras are “consistent with substantive state law related to speeding” and not “irreconcilable” with the various Iowa Code provisions cited by Jacobsma.

Speaking to Radio Iowa’s Dar Danielson, Jacobsma said he is disappointed with today’s ruling but respects the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.

The high court may eventually consider a different case related to Sioux City’s traffic cameras. Last year, city officials filed a lawsuit claiming the Iowa Department of Transportation exceeded its authority when it issued rules restricting local governments’ use of automated traffic enforcement systems. That case is scheduled to be heard in Woodbury County District Court this May.

Nearly six months after he pled guilty to receiving hidden payments for endorsing Ron Paul, former State Senator Kent Sorenson still hasn’t been sentenced and won’t be for some time. Jason Noble reported for the Des Moines Register,

In a [February 19] hearing before U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt, attorneys for the government and for Sorenson agreed to delay sentencing in the case until April. The reason, Justice Department lead attorney Robert Higdon Jr. said, was that the government was “engaged” and “making progress” on a “larger investigation” into the 2012 presidential race. […]

It is unclear exactly who may be the target of the ongoing investigation, but questions have been raised about top aides in Paul’s 2012 campaign.

Sorenson received shady indirect payments from Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign for months, but his guilty plea was related to a payment scheme he negotiated with Ron Paul supporters. Russ Choma reported last year for the Open Secrets blog,

Sources say two grand juries are looking into the 2012 campaigns of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), whom Sorenson originally endorsed, and Paul, to whom Sorenson switched his support just days before the Iowa caucuses. A number of individuals confirmed to OpenSecrets Blog that they had been interviewed by FBI agents, the grand juries, or both.

Click through for more speculation on angles federal investigators may be pursuing.

Iowa House and Senate members have taken several steps toward raising the state gasoline tax for the first time since 1989. Follow me after the jump for details on where the legislation stands and the latest signals from the governor.

One big political question was answered today, as House Speaker Kraig Paulsen not only endorsed the gas tax bill but personally intervened to make sure it would clear the House Ways and Means Committee. His support may bring some reluctant House Republicans on board. Conservative advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Iowans for Tax Relief are pushing hard against any gas tax increase. Governor Terry Branstad or Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix appear ready to back this bill but may need to spend more political capital to get it passed.

Two important policy questions remain unanswered. First, what will be done to lessen the blow on low-income Iowans, who would be disproportionately affected by any increase in a regressive tax? Iowa’s tax system is already stacked against people with lower incomes.

Second, will the gas tax hike turn out to be a giant bait and switch? From business groups to road builders to heavyweights in the agricultural sector, advocates of a tax increase cite the poor condition of many Iowa roads and bridges. However, to my knowledge the pending legislation would not guarantee that any new Road Use Tax Fund revenues from gasoline taxes or vehicle fees be spent on repairing torn-up roads or structurally deficient bridges. Unless “fix it first” language or a change to the funding formula is added to the bill, the lion’s share of additional revenues from a gas tax hike could go toward building new roads or new lanes on existing roads, such as U.S. Highway 20 in northwest Iowa or any number of local “economic development” projects. If crumbling roads and bridges are used to justify a gas tax hike, lawmakers should stipulate that most of the new money raised would go toward existing infrastructure rather than new roads and lanes, which only increase future maintenance costs.  

UPDATE: The day after this post appeared, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen yanked Highfill from the Ways and Means Committee.

Did anyone read Josh Hafner’s feature on Republican State Representative Jake Highfill in Sunday’s Des Moines Register? The gist was that Highfill, the youngest current Iowa House member at age 24, has grown into his job as state legislator. He now feels “mature, more confident, he said, like he has a handle on the issues,” and his constituents aren’t bothered by his youth.

A few salient facts were missing from the profile.

Only a few weeks after becoming the state chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, Dr. Andy McGuire is overseeing big staff changes. As first reported by Iowa Starting Line yesterday, Troy Price is leaving after a little more than two years as executive director. Excerpt from an e-mail McGuire sent to State Central Committee members after a conference call on the evening of February 17:

I want to let you all know that our executive director Troy Price and our deputy executive director Kevin Geiken will be transitioning out of the party over the next couple of weeks. Troy will continue at the party until March 3, and Kevin is planning to remain to help with the SCC retreat March 7-8. I want to thank both of them for their outstanding service to the party and wish them all the best in their next endeavors.

I would also like to announce that Ben Foecke will be coming on as our new Executive Director starting February 23. Ben came to work at the Iowa Democratic Party out of college, canvassing door-to-door for the Harkin/Vilsack coordinated campaign in 2001. He became Caucus Director in 2004, overseeing the (then) largest Precinct Caucus in Iowa history. Since 2009, Ben has worked for the Iowa Senate Majority Fund.

I will update this post as needed with further details. UPDATE: Added below the official statement from the Iowa Democratic Party.

SECOND UPDATE: O.Kay Henderson noted that Foecke worked for Mike Blouin’s gubernatorial campaign during the 2006 Democratic primary. McGuire was Blouin’s running mate during that race. Pat Rynard pointed out,

[Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike] Gronstal endorsed and lobbied hard behind the scenes for McGuire’s candidacy, getting involved in internal party politics in a way he hasn’t before. Now one of his long-time staffers may lead the party’s day-to-day operations. As one of the only remaining elected Democratic leaders left in the state, it appears that Gronstal is taking a much more active control over the direction of the state party.

Entrepreneur Ravi Patel made his Congressional bid official yesterday in Iowa’s first district. His campaign is on the web at PatelforIowa.com, on Facebook here and on Twitter here. Pat Rynard profiled Patel at the Iowa Starting Line blog; excerpts are at the end of this post. Patel has indicated that his campaign will “be data-driven and heavy on social media.” His biggest challenges will be convincing voters that he’s not too young at age 29 to do this job, and connecting with voters in northeast Iowa, since he grew up and spent much of his adult life in cities that are part of Iowa’s second district.

At least three Democrats are likely to compete for the chance to face first-term Representative Rod Blum. The front-runner will be Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon, who finished second in last year’s IA-01 Democratic primary. She was the first to announce in this race and has been endorsed by some prominent Iowa politicians. UPDATE: Former State Senator Jack Hatch, who picked Vernon as his running mate in last year’s gubernatorial race, officially endorsed her for Congress in a February 17 e-mail. I’ve added that to the end of this post.

Former “Saturday Night Live” cast member Gary Kroeger seems ready to enter the race too. I had to laugh when the Des Moines Register’s Michael Morain reported this past weekend that Kroeger may run for Congress. The Register’s article did not mention that Iowa Starting Line broke that news way back on January 19.

Former Governor Chet Culver has said he is thinking about running for Congress in the northeast Iowa district as well.

Any comments about this race are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Online ads for Patel’s campaign are already running on various websites. At the end of this post, I’ve enclosed an ad that appeared on a page with Iowa weather information.  

Before adjourning for a weeklong recess for Presidents’ Day, the U.S. House of Representatives approved two bills extending some tax credits that had expired at the end of 2014. Follow me after the jump for key points of the legislation and how the Iowans voted.

Catching up on news from last week, the U.S. Senate confirmed Ashton Carter as secretary of defense by 93 votes to 5 (roll call) on February 12. Only five Republicans opposed the nomination, which is rare for President Barack Obama’s administration. Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported Carter, and I’ve enclosed their statements after the jump. Grassley emphasized that he will “continue to press for clean, accurate audits at the Defense Department,” while Ernst praised Carter’s “strong support and dedication to our service members and their families.” Ernst serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which unanimously forwarded Carter’s nomination earlier in the week. Kristina Wong reported for The Hill, “Republicans on the committee were particularly pleased that Carter said he would consider recommending that Obama modify his Afghanistan troop drawdown schedule, if necessary, and that he was inclined to arm Ukraine against Russian aggression.”

I’ve also enclosed below Carter’s official bio, summarizing his extensive Pentagon experience.

On February 9, Grassley and Ernst joined their colleagues in unanimously confirming Michael Botticelli as director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Grassley’s statement on the country’s new “drug czar” is after the jump too. He praised Botticelli for recognizing “the dangers of smoking marijuana.” In recent testimony before a U.S. House committee, Botticelli said “The [Obama] Administration continues to oppose attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs.”

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush made a strong statement on Friday when his political action committee announced $122,800 in donations to Republican parties and candidates in early presidential nominating states. The Right to Rise PAC gave $10,000 to the Republican Party of Iowa and $5,200 each to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative David Young (IA-03).

The money Bush gave (and didn’t give) in Iowa speaks volumes.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’m not big on “Hallmark holidays,” but if Valentine’s Day (or “co-opting Valentine’s Day”) is your thing, I hope you enjoyed February 14. This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

I wanted to catch up on news from a couple of weeks ago, which may continue to reverberate during the Republican Iowa caucus campaign. The owners of Görtz Haus agreed to settle with a gay couple who had wanted to get married at their venue in Grimes. Betty and Richard Odgaard are Mennonites who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. Since the law doesn’t allow them to discriminate against LGBT couples, they have decided not to hold any weddings at their place of business. They also dropped their own doomed-to-fail lawsuit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Clips with background on the episode and reaction to its resolution are after the jump.

Social conservatives are outraged over what they see as an assault on religious freedom. Both talk radio host Steve Deace and Bob Vander Plaats’ organization The FAMiLY Leader have indicated that the Görtz Haus controversy will be a salient issue in the coming presidential campaign.

What these folks can’t acknowledge is that no one is forcing the Odgaards or anyone else to approve of or “celebrate” gay weddings. Many of us have ethical or religious objections to some marriages; for instance, if the couple began dating while married to other people, or if one person appears to be marrying solely for money, or if there is a large age gap between the spouses. Plenty of Jews and Christians would disapprove of my own interfaith marriage. No one is demanding that the whole world applaud every marriage, only that the religious beliefs of some don’t interfere with the civil rights of others.

Additionally, it’s important to note that no house of worship in Iowa has ever been forced to hold same-sex weddings. If the Odgaards ran a church, they would be fully within their rights to refuse to serve LGBT couples. Görtz Haus is a for-profit business, subject to the same civil rights statutes as other public venues.  

The Iowa Board of Medicine released a remarkable file on Thursday detailing its settlement agreement with Dr. Fredric Sager, an obstetrician/gynecologist based in Clive. You can read the full document here (pdf). After the jump I’ve enclosed the first five pages, which cover the charges of “unethical or unprofessional conduct” and “disruptive behavior,” as well as the main terms of the settlement. Reading what Sager did with some of his patients, including staying with them at his vacation home in Florida, it’s mind-boggling that his license to practice medicine was not revoked or at least suspended. Instead, he will pay a fine of $7,500 (a token amount for a well-compensated doctor in Iowa), undergo some counseling on “professional boundaries,” transfer certain patients out of his care, and be forced to have a “female healthcare professional chaperone” present when treating female patients in the future.

Multiple acquaintances who work with vulnerable populations in Polk County have told me that Sager treated many patients without a strong support system, such as pregnant teens, homeless youth, and young single women. In fact, one person had heard a teen in Sager’s care talk about possibly going to Florida with him, but brushed it off as delusional thinking. It makes me sick that the Iowa Board of Medicine is allowing him to continue to practice medicine as an OB/GYN–even with a chaperone–after establishing his pattern of predatory and inappropriate behavior with patients.  

In contrast, the state Board of Medicine rushed through without adequate public input a rule banning the use of “telemedicine” for medical abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics around Iowa. Board members moved to ban that procedure despite studies demonstrating the safety of telemedicine abortions. Advocates were not able to cite any evidence of adverse outcomes among more than 5,000 Iowa women who had used the teleconferencing system to receive abortifacients. Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit challenging the state rule is pending before the Iowa Supreme Court.

Governor Terry Branstad appointed all ten current members of the Iowa Board of Medicine. Six are physicians, and four are members of the public.  

Four years ago, Republicans rushed to pass a state constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman within weeks of regaining control of the Iowa House. Every member of the GOP caucus was on the same page.

Two years ago, the marriage amendment failed to come up for a vote in the Iowa House, but a majority of Republican lawmakers still co-sponsored the legislation.

Now, signs point to Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chair Chip Baltimore letting the marriage amendment die quietly, as he did in 2013. Fewer than a quarter of the 57 House Republicans signed on to the latest effort to turn back the clock on marriage rights. At the same time, only one GOP lawmaker is “loud and proud” about supporting the right of all Iowans to marry the person they love.

Follow me after the jump for a breakdown of where Iowa House Republicans stand on the “traditional marriage” amendment, and speculation on why so many of them aren’t trying to pass it anymore, even though they ostensibly don’t support LGBT marriage rights.  

Iowa’s new U.S. Senator Joni Ernst is often described as the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate, but Andrew Reinbach took issue with that label in a recent commentary for the Huffington Post. I’ve posted excerpts after the jump, along with Ernst’s response. Reinbach’s main point is that while Ernst technically qualifies as a combat veteran, she should not use that label, never having come under enemy fire during her service in Iraq and Kuwait.

No one will ever mistake me for a big fan of Ernst, but I disagreed with those who grumbled about the “combat veteran” label last year, and I disagree with Reinbach now. Ernst served in a war zone during wartime. Lots of Americans were severely wounded or killed while performing supply or supporting roles during the Iraq War. Fortunately, the Iowa National Guard’s 1168th Transportation Company was not ambushed and never drove over a bomb. That fact doesn’t diminish the real risks facing everyone who served in the company.

Reinbach did make one valid argument, in my opinion: Ernst should correct those who say she “led troops into combat,” because that phrase gives a misleading impression of her role. Speaking to Radio Iowa about the criticism, Ernst did not directly acknowledge the point but said in her defense, “I have never once claimed that I have a combat action badge. I have never claimed that I have had a purple heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

Far too many combat veterans take their own lives after completing their wartime service. Congress recently addressed this national disgrace by approving the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act unanimously in the U.S. House and Senate. This bill should have become law last year, but a jackass who has since left the Senate blocked the bill from passing by unanimous consent during the lame-duck session.

Meanwhile, new Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald put his foot in his mouth in a huge way during a House committee hearing today. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Blaze,

At the end of a few minutes of sniping, McDonald ended by barking at [GOP Representative Mike] Coffman, “I’ve run a large company, sir. What have you done?”

As it turns out, Coffman is a combat veteran who started his own company, and is the only member of Congress to have served in both Iraq wars.

The comments from McDonald, who once ran Procter & Gamble, were later described by Coffman’s office as “obnoxious.”

Hey, corporate genius: next time you go up to the Hill, have your staff brief you ahead of time on who will be asking the questions.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

This afternoon the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Senate-passed version of a bill that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. As was the case last month, all four Iowans were part of the House majority that passed the bill by 270 votes to 152 (roll call). Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was one of 29 Democrats who voted yes today; his record on previous bills related to the pipeline is mixed. President Barack Obama has said he will veto the Keystone XL bill. The big question is what he will do if Congress includes similar language in other “must-pass” legislation.

Yesterday the House passed two bills related to the Transportation Security Agency. Members unanimously approved a bill “aimed at stopping the Transportation Security Agency from overpaying some of its workers to act as investigators, when they aren’t really investigating anything,” Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Blaze. The other bill, approved with only one dissenting vote, is intended to improve security at U.S. airports, in particular contingency plans for terrorist incidents.

Also today, House members including all four Iowans unanimously approved a bill to award “a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” However, House Republicans rejected calls from Democratic leaders to quickly pass legislation that would reanimate the Voting Rights Act after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of that law in 2013.  

A standoff over state funding for K-12 education appears unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The Republican-controlled Iowa House has approved legislation setting “allowable growth” in state funding to school districts at 1.25 percent for fiscal year 2016; the House Journal for January 27 includes details on the debate, during which members rejected on a party-line vote a Democratic amendment to increase school spending, and later approved House File 80, also along party lines. House Republicans reportedly support a 2.45 percent increase in school funding for fiscal year 2017 but have not brought legislation before the full chamber yet.

Meanwhile, Democrats who control the Iowa Senate are committed to setting allowable growth at 4 percent for each of the next two fiscal years. Many education groups have lobbied lawmakers for at least 4 percent allowable growth, and in a Senate Democratic survey of Iowa superintendents, 96 percent of respondents said the appropriate level of supplemental state aid for the coming fiscal year should be 4 percent or higher.

Yesterday four education funding bills passed the upper chamber; a statement enclosed after the jump covers the key points in each bill. The legislation setting allowable growth at 4 percent for fiscal year 2016 and 2017 passed on party-line votes (roll calls are in the Senate Journal). Republicans joined their colleagues to unanimously approve the other two bills, which would “have the state pick up the 12.5 percent property tax share under the state’s foundation aid formula for both fiscal years.” Rod Boshart summed up the bottom line:

Under the GOP approach, current state per-pupil funding of $6,366 would grow by $80 in fiscal 2016 and another $158 in fiscal 2017. By contrast, the Senate’s 4 percent position would boost per-pupil funding to $6,621 for the 2015-16 academic year and $6,886 the following school year.

Or to view it another way, the House approach would include nearly $100 million in additional K-12 school funding for fiscal year 2016, while the Senate approach would provide an additional $212 million this coming year and $217 million the following year.

The obvious compromise would be to increase school aid by somewhere between 2-3 percent for each of the next two years, but Republican lawmakers and Governor Terry Branstad insist there’s no room in the state budget for that much additional spending. Note that no one questioned whether Iowans could afford an extra $100 million in tax cuts, mostly for business, which just passed the Iowa House unanimously.

During yesterday’s debate, Democratic State Senator Tony Bisignano argued that the big commercial property tax cut approved in 2013 will shortchange Iowa students. (Indeed, when that commercial property tax bill passed, many people warned that it would lead to cuts in public services.) State Senator Joe Bolkcom also criticized “messed up” priorities that favor “special interests” in the state tax code. As long as I’ve been paying attention to the Iowa legislature, tax expenditures have always been an easier sell than more money for schools or other public services. That dynamic won’t change this year.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.  

Republican David Sieck won yesterday’s special election to represent Iowa House district 23. The seat became vacant after State Representative Mark Costello won the special election to replace Joni Ernst in Iowa Senate district 12. Unofficial results from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office indicate that Sieck won 1082 votes to 404 for Democrat Steve Adams. House district 23 is one of the most GOP-leaning Iowa House seats, containing more than twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats. The southwestern Iowa district covers Mills and Fremont counties, plus most of Montgomery County. I’ve enclosed a map after the jump.

Sieck had unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination to replace Ernst, and Adams was the Democratic nominee in the Senate district 12 special election. The Omaha World-Herald published this background on Sieck:

“I’m running because I’m fed up with big government pushing down on us all the time,” Sieck said.

Sieck is a lifelong resident of Iowa and a founding member of Responsible River Management, which works to find solutions to river management issues on the Missouri River, among other duties. He was vice chairman of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee and a recipient of the Grassroots Award in 2014 with the Iowa and National Corn Growers Associations.

Do you think Sieck views farm subsidies, crop insurance subsidies, and flood relief funds as the federal government “pushing down” on farmers in his area?

Lawmakers from the two parties remain far from consensus on high-profile tax and budget questions, but the Iowa legislature has unanimously approved its first tax bill of the 2015 session. Senate File 126 (full text here) passed the Iowa Senate by 49 votes to 0 on February 4 and passed the Iowa House by 95 votes to 0 today. It “conforms Iowa’s revenue laws to incorporate federal changes” made during 2014. O.Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa,

The bill would extend a tax break to Iowa business owners, allowing them to claim the first half a million dollars worth of new equipment purchases as a tax deduction for the business. It also allows Iowa teachers to claim a tax credit for up to $250 for the supplies, equipment and materials used in their classroom.

Unlike most bills, which take effect on July 1 (at the start of the next fiscal year), SF 126 “takes effect upon enactment” and “applies retroactively to January 1, 2014, for tax years beginning on or after that date.” The fiscal note indicates that this bill will reduce state tax revenue by $98.98 million in the current fiscal year. About $83.5 million of that comes from one part of the bill:

Of the extended provisions, the most significant from a fiscal impact perspective is the extension of favorable depreciation expensing known as “Section 179 expensing.” This provision allows business taxpayers (including corporate taxpayers and business entities taxed through the individual income tax) to write off additional depreciation in the year a qualified depreciable asset is placed in service. Since the provision accelerates the claiming of depreciation, the provision reduces taxes owed in the first year, but increases taxes owed in later years.

Looking through the lobbyist declarations, I didn’t see any lobbyists registered against this bill. The Iowa Society of Public Accountants, Deere & Company, Iowa Community Foundations, and the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation all registered in favor. Speaking to Radio Iowa, Republican State Representative Chris Hagenow said certified public accountants and tax preparers had told lawmakers “this is a priority for them” to provide “certainty” going into tax season.  

As poll after poll demolishes the “Hillary’s Iowa problem” narrative relentlessly pushed by some journalists and bloggers, a new narrative is emerging: Clinton is “old news” who doesn’t energize Democrats. Robert Costa reported for the Washington Post on a recent meeting of thirteen “Ready for Warren” volunteers in Ames. They are “tired” of the Clintons and resent the “hacks” who feel “think Hillary is entitled to be president.” They feel that Senator Elizabeth Warren better represents where our party should be on the big issues.

Clearly these are not isolated views among Iowa Democrats. Both the latest Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics and the latest Loras College poll found that Warren was the first choice of between 15 and 20 percent of Democratic respondents. I can relate, because even though I consider the “Run Warren Run” campaign a waste of progressive energy and money, I also feel closer ideologically to Warren than to Clinton.

By the same token, I wouldn’t exaggerate the level of “Clinton fatigue” here. You don’t have to look hard to find Iowa Democrats who are very excited about Clinton running for president again. Pat Rynard talked to some of these activists for a recent post at Iowa Starting Line. I’ve been talking with many acquaintances who reliably attend the caucuses–not just longtime Hillary fans, but also people who caucused for Barack Obama or John Edwards in 2008. Some were donors or even precinct captains for Obama or Edwards. Overwhelmingly, they have told me they hope Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. They are ready to caucus for her and in some cases ready to volunteer for her campaign. For some, it’s a pragmatic belief that Clinton is best positioned to win the general election. Others are genuinely enthusiastic about the chance to elect the first woman president. Republicans may gripe about Clinton’s age and long time in the national spotlight, but I don’t think that the prospect of electing a woman president will ever be “old news.”

I enjoy a competitive Iowa caucus campaign as much as anyone, so I hope other Democrats will enter the presidential race. But Warren’s not running, and whoever does run is not likely to give Clinton much trouble in Iowa. We are going to have to figure out how to organize our own grassroots without multiple presidential candidates spending millions of dollars on dozens of field offices around the state. One key will be mobilizing those who are “ready for Hillary.”

While in central Iowa to cover New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s event with Dallas County Republicans this evening, Robert Costa of the Washington Post interviewed Governor Terry Branstad today. Here’s what passes for breaking news: Branstad told Costa that he is not likely to seek a seventh term in 2018 and is “grooming” Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds to succeed him.

“I’ve had the great honor and opportunity to serve the people of Iowa, and I want to do this job and do it well,” Branstad said. “Kim Reynolds would be the best choice to be the next governor.”

If Branstad serves through the end of this year, he will become the longest-serving governor in U.S. history, eclipsing George Clinton, who served 21 years as governor of New York during and after the Revolutionary War.

“I need to serve through December 14 or 15 of this year to break his record, so I’m on the way already, I just have to continue to serve one year into this term,” he said.

Branstad has been saying for a long time that he is determined to make Reynolds the next governor. Breaking with Iowa tradition of sending the lieutenant governor to events the governor can’t attend in person, he continues to bring Reynolds along to most of his public appearances. Press releases from the governor’s office continue to refer to the governor and lieutenant governor as a single unit consistently in what appears to be a branding effort to associate Reynolds’ name with Branstad’s.

I am 100 percent convinced that Branstad will resign well before his term ends in order to allow Reynolds to run for governor in 2018 as an incumbent. (I see two likely windows for the resignation, either shortly after the 2016 general election or shortly after the 2017 Iowa legislative session.) Reynolds would struggle to win a statewide Republican primary if she were not the incumbent, because she didn’t have a strong constituency within the GOP base before holding her current position. On the contrary, hardly anyone outside her Iowa Senate district had heard of Reynolds when Branstad picked her to be his running mate.

Even if Reynolds becomes governor before 2018, I doubt she will have smooth sailing in the GOP primary. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey is likely to run for governor and will be well-funded. I expect some candidate to emerge from the social conservative wing as well.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul came to central Iowa this weekend. He drew more than 200 people to an event in Des Moines on Friday night, packed a restaurant in Marshalltown on Saturday morning, and took in the Iowa State men’s basketball game that afternoon. It was Paul’s first visit to our state since October, when he campaigned in eastern Iowa with Congressional candidate Rod Blum and Senate candidate Joni Ernst. Clips with more news from Paul’s appearances are after the jump, along with excerpts from Shane Goldmacher’s recent article for the National Journal, which depicted former Iowa GOP chair A.J. Spiker as an “albatross” for Paul’s caucus campaign.

Before I get to the Rand Paul news, some quick thoughts about Representative Blum, who joined Paul for his Marshalltown event. Blum didn’t endorse a candidate before the 2012 Iowa caucuses and told The Iowa Republican’s Kevin Hall that he doesn’t “plan to endorse anyone” before the upcoming caucuses, adding,

“I might at the very end. We need a strong leader. We need genuine, authentic leadership and I may rise or fall in my election in two years based on who this presidential candidate is.”

I will be surprised if Blum doesn’t officially back Paul sometime before the caucuses. The “Liberty” movement got behind him early in the GOP primary to represent IA-01. At that time, many Iowa politics watchers expected the nomination to go to a candidate with better establishment connections, such as Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen or State Representative Walt Rogers. Paulsen eventually chickened out of the race, and Rogers bailed out a few months before the primary after overspending on campaign staff. Arguably, Blum owes Liberty activists for helping him scare off the strongest Republican competition. Without them, he might be a two-time failed GOP primary candidate, rather than a first-term member of Congress.

The case against Blum endorsing Paul before the caucuses is that doing so might anger GOP supporters of other presidential candidates. Even if Paul remains in the top tier by this time next year, 70 percent to 80 percent of Iowa Republican caucus-goers will likely prefer someone else. Blum will need all hands on deck to be re-elected in Iowa’s first district, which is now one of the most Democratic-leaning U.S. House seats held by a Republican (partisan voting index D+5). It will be a top target for House Democrats in 2016.

Still, I think Blum would be better off endorsing than staying neutral. Most Republicans in the IA-01 counties will vote for him in the general election either way. By getting behind Paul when it counts, Blum would give Liberty activists more reasons to go the extra mile supporting his campaign later in the year, regardless of whether Paul becomes the presidential nominee or (as I suspect) seeks another term as U.S. senator from Kentucky. Besides, if Blum really believes that Paul’s outreach to youth and minorities has the potential to grow the GOP, he should invest some of his political capital in that project.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

A few days ago, the Romenesko blog delivered a depressing inside view of life for Des Moines Register reporters. I encourage you to click through and read the whole memo on “Minimal job requirements of a self-directed reporter.” Bleeding Heartland has long lamented the relentless series of cuts to the Register’s news division through buyouts and layoffs. The flip side to that story is the growing list of jobs journalists are expected to do now. Judging by this memo, Gannett expects news staff not only to report well-researched “watchdog” pieces and breaking news, but also to edit their own work, closely monitor how stories are performing on the website (changing headlines if necessary), and do marketing and branding tasks that I wouldn’t consider a reporter’s job. On top of all that, the bosses expect journalists to have time to engage with readers on various social media, promote their colleagues’ stories as well as their own, and set up “get-to-know-you coffee meetings” with “key people on your beat.” Who has time for all this?

But wait! I buried the lede. The bombshell comes in the first passage under the first subheading (GROW YOUR AUDIENCE):

Define your audience: Work with your coach or strategist to define in detail the audience you are trying to reach for specific pieces of content. Also keep in mind our overall focus on the 25-45 age demographic.

Keep in mind the interests of your core audience as you decide what stories to write.

I will shortly exit the Register’s desired age cohort, joining what must be a very large share of the newspaper’s subscribers.

Presumably the “focus on the 25-45 age demographic” is why the Register’s “coaches” and “strategists” don’t mind when reporters waste time on stories such as what Mila Kunis said on Reddit about Casey’s breakfast pizza. Though in fairness, that “news” brings a collateral benefit: free publicity for a retail chain that’s a potential major advertiser in Iowa newspapers.

The Register’s memo expanded my vocabulary with one new word: “listicle,” suggested as a way for a self-directed reporter to “feed your audience’s interest” in a hot topic. “Listicle” refers to “a short-form of writing that uses a list as its thematic structure, but is fleshed out with sufficient copy to be published as an article.” Like many bloggers, I enjoy writing that kind of post (Three silver linings from Iowa’s 2014 elections, 15 Iowa politics predictions for 2015, Five political realities that should worry Democrats, Three political realities that should worry Republicans). I just didn’t know the format had a special name.

Speaking of engaging with your readers, I have a request for Bleeding Heartland’s core audience of anyone interested in Iowa politics. As the Iowa caucus campaign heats up, please keep your eyes and ears open for telephone surveys, push-polls, or direct mail promoting or attacking any specific candidate. Feel free to post a guest diary containing notes on the poll or screen-shots of the direct mail, or send me a private and confidential heads up by e-mail. This also means you, Republicans in the Bleeding Heartland community: I know you’re out there, and I appreciate your taking the time to read a left-leaning website. With a more lively competition on the GOP side, Iowa’s registered Republicans are more likely to receive newsworthy message-testing calls or hit pieces as the year goes on.  

Governor Terry Branstad’s office announced on Thursday that Brenna Bird (whose maiden name was Findley) is stepping down as the governor’s legal counsel “to pursue opportunities in the private sector.” Her LinkedIn profile hasn’t been updated yet, so it’s not clear whether Bird is returning to the Des Moines-based Whitaker Hagenow law firm. She joined that firm in 2010 after leaving Representative Steve King’s staff, but did not practice much law, since she was running for Iowa attorney general full-time.

Branstad named Bird as his legal counsel shortly after the 2010 election. She appears to have influenced several of the governor’s policy choices. At one time, Branstad had supported a mandate to purchase health insurance, but soon after being inaugurated in 2011, he joined a lawsuit to overturn the federal health care reform law (a key issue in Bird’s unsuccessful attorney general campaign). Branstad’s legal counsel also appears to have helped convince Branstad to change his position on banning lead shot for hunting mourning doves in Iowa. When the state legislature refused to overturn a rule mandating non-toxic ammunition, Bird worked several angles to overturn a rule adopted by the state Natural Resource Commission.

Bird’s work as legal counsel has also gotten the Branstad administration involved in some major litigation. In 2011, she participated in efforts to pressure Iowa’s Workers Compensation Commissioner to resign before the end of his fixed term. As a result, she and the governor, along with other former staffers, are co-defendants in a lawsuit filed by the former workers’ compensation commissioner.

In 2013, Bird was a key contact for Iowans seeking to ban the use of telemedicine for providing medical abortions in Planned Parenthood clinics. As the Iowa Board of Medicine considered a new rule containing verbatim wording from anti-abortion activists, the state Attorney General’s Office “cautioned the board against moving so quickly.” But as the governor’s counsel, Bird encouraged board members to adopt the telemedicine abortion ban immediately. Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit challenging that rule is pending with the Iowa Supreme Court.

Bird may be leaving the public sector for now, but I suspect Iowans will see her name on a ballot before too long. She reportedly considered running for Congress last year in Iowa’s third district and has served on the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee since last June. I could easily see Bird running for a Republican-leaning Iowa House or Senate seat if one were to open up in central Iowa. Alternatively, she and 2014 attorney general nominee Adam Gregg (now Iowa’s state public defender) are likely GOP candidates for attorney general in 2018.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. After the jump I’ve enclosed a press release on Bird’s departure from the governor’s staff, with background on Michael Bousselot, her successor as legal counsel.  

The U.S. House approved two more anti-regulation bills this week. On February 4, all the Republicans present and nine Democrats passed the “Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015” by 250 votes to 173 (roll call). The following day, nineteen Democrats joined the whole GOP caucus to approve the “Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015” by 260 votes to 163 (roll call).

Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voted for both bills. Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed them both; he also voted against last year’s version of the unfunded mandates bill.

The bill claiming to deal with unfunded mandates “would further require agencies to consult with private sector entities impacted by the proposed rules,” Cristina Marcos reported. The bill approved on Thursday “would require federal agencies to calculate the direct, as well as indirect, costs of proposed rules.”

I haven’t seen any public comment on these votes from the Iowans in Congress, but after the jump I enclose open letters from leaders of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of more than 150 “consumer, small business, labor, scientific, research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups.” They urged House members to reject the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, because it “neither improves nor streamlines the regulatory process” and “would rob the American people of many critical upgrades to public health and safety standards, especially those that ensure clean air and water, safe food and consumer products, safe workplaces, and a stable, prosperous economy.” The same coalition opposed the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, because it “would increase unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase undue influence by regulated industries and encourage convoluted court challenges.”

Votes like this fly under the radar as media pursue more news stories that interest the “core demographic.” That’s unfortunate, because this kind of non-glamorous policy-making could affect millions of people. Few Iowans will learn that under the guise of “cutting red tape,” our state’s Republicans in Congress would jeopardize rules that are meant to protect the public interest. Loebsack deserves credit for standing up against these bad bills. Major corporations and industries already have too much influence over government rules.  

Iowa politics watchers are still talking about the latest statewide poll by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics. Bleeding Heartland discussed the topline Iowa caucus numbers here. Harry Enten took issue with various “Scott Walker leads” headlines, writing at FiveThirtyEight that the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll indicates “chaos” rather than the Wisconsin governor leading the Republican field. Pat Rynard’s take on the implications for Democratic and Republican presidential contenders is at Iowa Starting Line.

Anyone who is vaguely familiar with Iowa Republican discourse shouldn’t be surprised that Jeb Bush’s stands on immigration reform and “Common Core” education standards are a “deal-killer” for many conservatives polled by Selzer. As for why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has the highest negatives (with 54 percent of GOP respondents viewing him unfavorably), there are many potential explanations. It’s only been a year since the scandal involving politically-motivated bridge lane closures made national news. Before that, he angered social conservatives by signing a bill that bans “gay conversion therapy” and by not fighting a court ruling that overturned New Jersey’s ban on same-sex marriage. Who knows, maybe some Iowa Republicans are still mad that Christie praised President Barack Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy right before the 2012 presidential election.

The Des Moines Register has rolled out other findings from the latest Iowa poll this week. Sad to say, I’m surprised that only 39 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers agreed with the statement “Islam is an inherently violent religion, which leads its followers to violent acts.” I would have expected more to agree with that statement and fewer than 53 percent of GOP respondents to lean toward “Islam is an inherently peaceful religion, but there are some who twist its teachings to justify violence.” Among likely Democratic caucus-goers in the sample, only 13 percent said Islam is inherently violent, while 81 percent said the faith is inherently peaceful.

Not surprisingly, Selzer’s poll found a big partisan divide in whether Iowans see U.S. Senator Joni Ernst as a potential president. I wish the question wording had been more clear. To me, “Do you think Joni Ernst does or does not have what it takes to become president one day?” is ambiguous. Were they trying to get at whether respondents think Ernst could do the job, or whether she could be elected? I don’t think Ernst has “what it takes” to be a good legislator, but obviously she had “what it takes” to win the Senate election. The results would be easier to interpret if respondents had been asked something like, “Would you ever consider voting for Joni Ernst for president someday?” or “Regardless of whether you might personally support her, do you think Joni Ernst could be elected president someday?”

No Des Moines Register story by Jennifer Jacobs about Ernst would be complete without some pro-Ernst slant, and in this case I had to laugh reading the pulled quotes from poll respondents. The ones who had good things to say about Ernst sounded reasonable and well spoken, whereas the one Democrat Jacobs quoted criticizing Ernst was made to look petty: “She kind of represents everything that makes me want to throw up in the morning – and I’m not even pregnant.”

Bleeding Heartland doesn’t usually comment on polls from other states, but Quinnipiac’s latest findings from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will interest any political junkie. In head to head match-ups, Hillary Clinton leads by double digits against every Republican tested in Pennsylvania. She “dominates” all of them in Ohio, except for Governor John Kasich, who trails her by a statistically insignificant 1 percent. She also has a comfortable lead in Florida against all of the Republicans except former Governor Jeb Bush, who trails by 1 percent. Yes, it’s “too early” for a 2016 general election poll; in 1999 many polls found George W. Bush way ahead of Vice President Al Gore. Yes, name recognition may be contributing to Clinton’s leads. Nevertheless, if the Q-poll is anywhere in the ballpark, the Republican nominee will go into the next presidential election as the underdog. Thanks to the “Big Blue Wall,” Clinton could get to 270 electoral votes with the states John Kerry won in 2004 plus Florida, or the states Kerry won plus Ohio and one or two other smaller states (such as Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, or Iowa).

Republicans may take heart in the fact that some of their likely presidential contenders (such as Walker) were not included in Quinnipiac’s swing-state polls.

Seven potential Republican presidential candidates have accepted Bruce Rastetter’s invitation to attend an “Iowa Agricultural Forum” in Des Moines next month, Erin Murphy reported yesterday. The seven are Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and national laughingstock sorry, entrepreneur Donald Trump. No doubt more Republicans will show up to be heard as well.

Rastetter also invited U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack as well as a half-dozen Democrats who may run for president this cycle or in the future: Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former U.S. Senator Jim Webb. So far no Democrats have accepted the invitation.

I hope they all steer clear of this event.

It’s a bit late for Rastetter to reinvent himself as some kind of non-partisan elder statesman. He provided the seed money for the 501(c)4 group American Future Fund, which quickly grew into one of the biggest-spending and most deceptive dark money groups on the right. After leading an effort to bring Terry Branstad out of political retirement, Rastetter became the top individual donor to Branstad’s 2010 campaign, landing a prestigious appointment to the influential Board of Regents. As a Regent, he has thrown his weight around more than most of his predecessors. In what many viewed as a conflict of interest, Rastetter continued to pursue a business project involving his biofuels company and Iowa State University in an extensive land acquisition in Tanzania. Later, he tried to get the University of Iowa’s president to arrange a meeting where biofuels industry representatives could educate a prominent professor whom Rastetter considered “uninformed” about ethanol. Rastetter was also involved in the fiasco that eventually led to Senator Tom Harkin pulling his papers from Iowa State University.

Early in the 2012 election cycle, Rastetter led a group of Iowa businessmen who tried to recruit New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to run for president. Although he is now cultivating an image as a corporate leader who is above the political fray, he will always be seen as a Republican power-broker in Iowa. I don’t see much upside to any Democrat showing up to kiss Rastetter’s ring. At best, the national and local reporters covering the Agriculture Forum will write about the “frosty reception” Democratic speakers got from a conservative audience. Or more likely, disruption by hecklers will overshadow any Democratic message on agricultural policy.

Democrats who may run for president will have lots of opportunities this year to address Iowans who might actually listen to them.  

Brad Anderson, the Democratic candidate for Iowa secretary of state in 2014, has taken a new job as executive director of the Des Moines-based non-profit Above + Beyond Cancer. The official announcement is after the jump. The organization “takes cancer survivors on incredible adventures” in order “to elevate the lives of those touched by cancer” and provide “an example for healthy living and cancer prevention in their communities.”

A former staffer for Senator Tom Harkin and Governor Chet Culver, Anderson has worked on many Iowa campaigns, most famously as manager of President Barack Obama’s 2012 effort in Iowa. Although he lost last year’s secretary of state race to Republican Paul Pate, Anderson proposed a lot of good ideas and ended up winning more votes statewide than the top of the Democratic ticket. I’m sure the whole Bleeding Heartland community (regardless of partisan affiliation) wishes Anderson success in his new position. Most Iowans have been affected by cancer in some way, and there’s no question that “health, fitness and good nutrition” are important for preventing or surviving the disease.

UPDATE: On February 11, Anderson sent an e-mail blast to supporters of his campaign for Iowa secretary of state. Scroll down to read.

What’s on your mind this week, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Both in the “real world” and on social media, it seems like everyone I know is talking about the controversy over mandatory vaccinations in light of the current measles outbreak. Following up on yesterday’s post about some Republican presidential candidates’ comments, here are more related links:

Over at Iowa Starting Line, Pat Rynard compiles reaction from other GOP presidential hopefuls, including Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. (Scot Walker also issued a strong pro-vaccination statement.) Rynard sees Christie and Paul getting “burned” on an issue they didn’t handle well. I’m not so sure. Social conservatives do not agree with big government imposing its judgment on any aspect of child-rearing. Arguably Christie has no hope with that crowd anyway after signing the New Jersey law that banned gay conversion therapy for teenagers, but Paul has a shot with them.

A nurse-practitioner who survived measles as a child wrote this open letter to parents who aren’t immunizing their children.

I believe it’s a huge mistake to discount anti-vaxxers as “anti-science.” I have encountered hundreds of parents who opt against vaccinating and talked with many of them about why we choose to vaccinate our children. My impression is similar to what German Lopez wrote after interviewing a prominent anti-vaccine activist:

Vaccine skeptics do think they believe in scientific evidence. They can cite dozens of studies and cases. They see themselves as the side in this debate that’s actually following the evidence, while the pro-vaccine side is blindly trusting in authority and ultimately getting taken in by a massive pharmaceutical scam.

I also believe that images and accounts of vaccine-injured children (yes, there are some adverse reactions) evoke such a powerful emotional response that it becomes difficult for many parents to imagine deliberately injecting a vaccine into their child. Statistically, every time you put your baby in a car and drive somewhere, your baby is at greater risk of serious injury than when getting a shot at the doctor. Statistically, the number of lives saved by vaccinating against diseases like HiB and meningitis vastly outnumbers the serious adverse reactions to vaccines. But in all the times I have used those arguments, I don’t think I have ever convinced a single skeptical parent to start vaccinating.

Since the year 2000, a growing number of Iowa families have sought medical or religious exemptions from state vaccination requirements. The Des Moines Register reports that there are no efforts in the Iowa House or Senate to tighten the rules on vaccine exemptions. Governor Terry Branstad is also satisfied with current policy, according to a statement from his office.

A new poll is in the field testing messages about Hillary Clinton with Iowa Democrats. The live-interviewer survey is coming from a Michigan-based phone number (586-200-0081). The caller will not say who paid for the survey, only that he or she represents “the National Data Collection Firm.” The caller asks respondents for their views on several prospective Democratic presidential candidates and various public-policy issues, then tests the respondent’s agreement with numerous statements about Clinton’s record and asks whether certain statements would make you more or less likely to vote for Clinton.

John Deeth took the call and posted his account here. My notes on the same survey are after the jump. Some New Hampshire residents are getting similar calls, but from a different phone number.

Although I don’t know who paid for this survey, the questionnaire suggests to me that it came from a group supporting Clinton’s presidential aspirations, not from a rival Democratic camp. There appears to be a special interest in gauging support for Senator Elizabeth Warren and her views on the system being rigged in favor of big banks and wealthy interests.

I also have a hunch, as yet unconfirmed, that the contact universe for this survey may consist only of men who are registered Democrats and have participated in past Iowa Democratic caucuses. I have not yet been able to find a woman who received the call, despite asking quite a few likely suspects (including some who took part in the previous message-testing poll about Clinton in Iowa). The caller asks for a specific voter by name, and so far I have only heard of men being targeted. When I picked up our landline, the caller asked to speak to Mr. desmoinesdem about “important issues in Iowa.” I said he was not available but that I would be happy to answer the questions. The caller insisted that they are supposed to talk with certain people and again asked for my husband. I said, “Are you sure I’m not on your list too?” and gave my name–I’ll bet that’s a new one for that poll-taker! He politely said he would call later for Mr. desmoinesdem. True to his word, he called back in a few hours, and my husband put the phone on speaker so I could take notes. The survey takes about 15-20 minutes.

UPDATE: Thanks to crowd-sourcing, I can confirm that women as well as men are in the respondent pool for this survey.

Toward the end of the survey, the caller asks whether the respondent supported John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama in the 2008 caucuses (no other options given). This question was not preceded by any question about whether the individual caucused that year, suggesting to me that the pollster drew up the sample from a list of Iowa Democrats who did caucus in 2008.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I would particularly like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers (male or female) who received the same call.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user DCCyclone notes in the comments, “It’s definitely a high-priced survey for a campaign, party, or superpac or similarly campaign-focused interest group.  That the caller asked for a voter by name proves that, because only high-priced internal surveys sample that way.” I tend to agree that Ready for Hillary is the most likely suspect.

Yesterday the U.S. House approved a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act by 239 votes to 186 (roll call). No Democrats supported the bill, and only three Republicans broke ranks with their party to oppose it. By some counts, it was the 56th time the Republican-led House has voted to repeal all or part of the 2010 health care reform law. Still, many newly-elected GOP lawmakers wanted a chance to weigh in after campaigning against Obamacare.

Iowa’s four representatives split along the usual party lines, with Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voting yes and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed. Loebsack has occasionally voted for Republican bills that reverse specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, but he has never supported any of the broad repeal bills.

I enclose below statements released by King and Young on yesterday’s vote.  During last year’s campaign, Young suggested that Obamacare was “here to stay” and said he would be “at the table trying to fix” the law if elected to Congress. In yesterday’s press release, Young advocated several GOP proposals on health insurance but added that Republicans “must continue to ensure coverage is provided to individuals even if they have preexisting conditions and that young people still struggling in the job market are able to continue to receive coverage under a parent’s plan.” King’s official comments said nothing about preserving any aspects of the current law. He emphasized that he filed the very first Obamacare repeal measure on the day after House members approved the bill in March 2010.

I highly recommend Dana Milbank’s entertaining account of the House debate on the latest bill. Excerpts are after the jump, but you should click through to read the whole Washington Post column.

UPDATE: According to Sahil Kapur,

The [Republican] party is divided on whether it should even attempt to craft a contingency health care plan of its own. Illustrating the dispute, Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Jeff Duncan (R-SC) tried to propose an amendment that strips out the language calling for “replacement legislation.”

The recent measles outbreak has sparked more media discussion of the trend away from routine vaccination. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tried to walk a fine line when asked about the issue yesterday, saying parents should have “some measure of choice” over immunizing their kids. I enclose his comments and his staff’s later attempts to clarify below.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, who is also a medical doctor, told a popular right-wing radio host yesterday, “I’m not anti-vaccine at all but…most of them ought to be voluntary. […] I think there are times in which there can be some rules but for the most part it ought to be voluntary.” He took a shot at former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has said it was a mistake for his administration to try to require the human papillomavirus vaccine for pre-teen girls in Texas.

As these and other Republican presidential candidates tour Iowa this year, I guarantee that they will face many more questions about the vaccine issue. In my non-blogging life, I have encountered hundreds of Iowa parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. They are a diverse group and can’t be stereotyped as “crunchy hippie” lefties or religious conservatives. Some don’t trust the government to regulate toxins in products pushed by pharmaceutical companies. Others may not believe vaccines cause autism but fear different adverse reactions. Or, they think “natural immunity” acquired through getting a disease is stronger. Many conservative evangelicals and Catholics shun vaccines because of concerns about the use of fetal tissue in their manufacture (see also here). Although the most influential homeschooling group, the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, does not take a position for or against immunizations, my impression is that anti-vaccine views are more prevalent among homeschoolers than among parents who send their children to public or parochial schools. Homeschoolers were a critical base of support for Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa caucus campaign and were courted by multiple presidential candidates before the 2012 caucuses.

Some libertarian-leaning conservatives may not worry about the safety or ethics of vaccines, and may even have their own children immunized, but on principle don’t think the government should tell parents anything about how to raise kids. That group looks like a natural Rand Paul constituency, but they may be open to other candidates who cater to their views.

Regardless of how far the measles outbreak spreads, this issue will remain a minefield for GOP candidates.

Side note: In central Iowa, more and more pediatric practices are rejecting families whose parents want to deviate from the accepted vaccine schedule. In my opinion, that is a huge mistake. There is no one perfect immunization schedule. Medical associations in different countries recommend that babies and toddlers get shots for various diseases at different times. Based on my conversations, many of these parents would agree to most or all of the vaccines eventually; they just feel uncomfortable with so many shots clustered close together. Instead of accommodating those concerns with a delayed schedule, pediatricians are driving families away. So worried parents either stop taking their kids to regular wellness checks, or seek medical care only from chiropractors or alternative health providers.

UPDATE: Added below further comments from Rand Paul on why vaccines should be voluntary.

Likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton weighed in on Twitter: “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest”

A Bleeding Heartland reader reminded me about this report from last year, indicating that “In West Des Moines, 37 percent of home-schooled children are not fully vaccinated.”  

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal celebrated his 65th birthday on January 29. The Des Moines Register’s William Petroski caught up with Gronstal after fellow senators sang “Happy Birthday” and confirmed that the longtime Democratic leader has no plans to retire. He’s up for re-election next year in Senate district 8, covering the Council Bluffs area and Carter Lake (scroll to the end of this post to view a detailed map).

Now that Tom Harkin has retired, Gronstal may be the Iowa Democrat whom Republicans most love to hate. But I have news for them: he’s going to win another term in 2016, and here’s why.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome. Bonus points if someone can suggest a good reason for Senator Joni Ernst voting against renewable energy tax credits this week. Her staff should have informed her that those tax credits are important for Iowa’s wind turbine manufacturers. Then she could have followed Senator Chuck Grassley’s lead. Or maybe that information wouldn’t have mattered, since Ernst owes a lot to the Koch brothers, who strongly oppose federal incentives for renewable energy.

The Des Moines Register just published the latest Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa poll, which was in the field a few days after Representative Steve King’s Iowa Freedom Summit generated substantial political news coverage. Selzer & Co. surveyed 402 “likely Republican caucus-goers” between January 26 and 29, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent. No candidate has a statistically significant lead; the “top tier” are Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, 2012 nominee Mitt Romney (who hadn’t announced yet that he wasn’t running), former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (who won the 2008 Iowa GOP caucuses), Dr. Ben Carson, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. You can read the highlights on the Register’s website; after the jump I’ve embedded the polling memo. For my money, this is the most interesting part of Jennifer Jacobs’ story:

Sixty percent say it’s more important to vote for the person who aligns with their values, even if that candidate isn’t electable, compared with 36 percent who say winning the White House for Republicans is more important.

A majority – 51 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers – would prefer an anti-establishment candidate without a lot of ties to Washington or Wall Street who would change the way things are done and challenge conventional thinking. That compares to 43 percent who think the better leader would be a mainstream establishment candidate with executive experience who understands business and how to execute ideas, the new poll shows.

For respondents who say they want an establishment candidate, Romney is their first choice. With Romney out of the picture, Walker leads. Huckabee is next, then Bush.

Among those who want an anti-establishment candidate, Paul is the favorite, followed by Walker and Carson.

The 401 “Democratic likely caucus-goers” surveyed by Selzer & Co. overwhelmingly lean toward former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s the first choice of 56 percent and the second choice of 15 percent of respondents. Senator Elizabeth Warren polled 16 percent as a first choice and 23 percent as a second choice. Vice President Joe Biden polled 9 percent as a first choice and 26 percent as a second choice. All other potential candidates were in single digits.

FEBRUARY 1 UPDATE: Ben Schreckinger is out with a Politico story headlined, “Iowa Dems high and dry as Hillary decides.” I’ve added excerpts after the jump. The story is full of angtsy quotes about how there’s not as much activity on the Democratic side as there was before the 2004 and 2008 caucuses, and how Republicans will benefit from more organizing by presidential hopefuls. It’s true, Iowa Republicans have had way more candidate visits, including events to raise money for county parties or down-ballot candidates. Guess what? It’s going to stay that way for all of 2015. Our party has a prohibitive front-runner, and she is well-liked by the vast majority of likely Democratic caucus-goers. We’re not going to have multiple presidential candidates spending millions of dollars on dozens of field offices around the state. So stop whining about it to national reporters and start figuring out how to build a grassroots network without an Iowa caucus as competitive as 2004 or 2008.

I also added below a statement from the Iowa GOP, contrasting the “vibrant” and “diverse” Republican presidential field with the Democratic landscape ahead of the 2016 caucuses.

Speaking in “his best precinct, the top-level donor conference call,” Mitt Romney announced this morning that he will not run for president a third time. Though the odds against a successful bid for the presidency would seem obvious to any casual politics watcher, Romney appears to have genuinely believed that he could win in 2016 with a sharper message. But many of his top donors, bundlers, and early-state volunteers were reluctant to board the Romney train one more time. In what may have been the last straw, yesterday news broke that David Kochel will soon move to Miami to work as “senior strategist” for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s new political action committee. Kochel was Romney’s top Iowa consultant during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles but is expected to become Bush’s national campaign manager once Jeb makes his presidential race official.

Kochel told Jonathan Martin of the New York Times that a lot of Iowans “will be interested in signing up” with Jeb Bush, adding that “You compete everywhere because that’s how you win delegates.” Some people had speculated that Bush might bypass the Iowa caucuses, seen to favor socially conservative candidates. He skipped Representative Steve King’s cattle call “Iowa Freedom Summit” last weekend in Des Moines, where several of the speakers took shots at him.

In general, Bush has spent the last month on major donor contacts and strategizing rather than public appearances. Bank on him to raise far more money than anyone else in the large presidential field during the first half of this year. He could raise as much as the rest of the field combined.

With Romney out, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie looks like the only person who can compete with Jeb for the “establishment Republican” niche. He reminded the audience at the Iowa Freedom Summit that he’s visited this state eleven times since 2010. You can listen to that speech at Radio Iowa.

Iowa Republican power-broker Bruce Rastetter spearheaded a “draft Christie” before the 2012 Iowa caucuses. So far this cycle, he is staking out a more neutral position. Last week Rastetter’s public relations team announced plans to hold an Iowa Agriculture Summit in Des Moines on March 7. About two dozen possible presidential candidates from both parties have been invited to participate; the full list is in a press release I’ve enclosed after the jump. Governor Terry Branstad told Radio Iowa this week that Jeb Bush is “very interested” in attending the forum.  

While most of the speakers at King’s overly long Freedom Summit came to town solely for that occasion, 2012 Iowa caucuses winner Rick Santorum toured the state for several days afterward. He is still pushing a message I think Republicans should hear about how the GOP could better connect with working-class Americans. Radio Iowa posted the full audio here. According to Iowa Starting Line, Santorum didn’t draw a lot of applause at the Freedom Summit but was well-received at his small events this past week. Nevertheless, I expect most of his 2012 supporters to flow to other candidates this year, especially Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz.

I still like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s chances to win the Iowa caucuses. By all accounts he made a good impression on the Freedom Summit crowd. So did Ben Carson, but I don’t see Carson putting together a professional campaign operation. Radio Iowa posted the full audio and highlights from the Walker speech here. Click here to listen to Ted Cruz, another crowd favorite.

In contrast, former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin bombed at the Freedom Summit, done in by a malfunctioning teleprompter. With her public speaking experience, she should have been able to wing it. I had to laugh when I saw Sam Clovis bash her to the Sioux City Journal’s reading audience. He’s probably still bitter that Palin endorsed Joni Ernst for Senate last spring when Clovis was campaigning as the true conservative in the GOP field.

The Republican Party of Iowa is accepting straw poll venue bids until Thursday, February 12. A recent press release said “Venue proposals should be able to accommodate large crowds and have ample parking.” The major fundraiser coming this August has traditionally been held in Ames, but I’m hearing there will be a strong push for Farm Progress Show in Boone. The State Fairgrounds in Des Moines are another leading contender for the event.

In news from the Democratic side, Mike Allen reported for Politico that former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “strongly considering delaying the formal launch of her presidential campaign until July.” A lot of Iowa Democrats are upset that Clinton has in effect frozen the field of play. They won’t be happy if she leaves everyone hanging until mid-summer. By this point in 2007, several Democratic presidential candidates already were opening field offices in key Iowa cities.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley made his first Iowa hire recently. Jake Oeth, who served as political director for Bruce Braley’s U.S. Senate campaign, is now doing outreach for O’Malley as a consultant to the O’Say Can You See PAC. According to Pat Rynard at Iowa Starting Line, O’Malley had been recruiting Oeth for some time. The former Maryland governor has Iowa connections going all the way back to Gary Hart’s 1984 presidential campaign and paid his dues last year with several Iowa visits, including the keynote speech for the state Democratic Party convention and fundraisers for Democratic candidates. Although some consider the former Maryland governor a possible rival to Clinton, I see him more as a back-up candidate if some unexpected development prevents Clinton from running.

MoveOn.org Political Action opened a Des Moines office for the Run Warren Run effort two weeks ago. I’ve posted the announcement after the jump; it mentions the first Iowa staff hires. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, I think the “draft Warren” effort is mostly a waste of progressive energy and resources. Not that I’m against house parties for liberals, but they could be organizing around a more practical political cause. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to recruit Warren won’t change the fact that she is not running for president. Pat Rynard attended the Run Warren Run office kickoff party on January 29 and posted his thoughts on the campaign’s “murky mission.”

I haven’t heard much lately about U.S. Senator Jim Webb, who formed an exploratory committee late last year to consider a presidential bid. I never bought into him as a serious rival to Clinton, and he didn’t respond adeptly to the first real scrutiny of his PAC’s activities. I’m keeping an open mind about the Democratic race until the field is set, but if Webb turns out to be the only alternative candidate, I will be caucusing for Hillary.

Any comments about the Iowa caucuses are welcome in this thread.

After hours of floor debate and votes on dozens of amendments over more than two weeks, today the U.S. Senate approved a bill to force construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Nine Democrats joined all the Republicans present to pass the final bill by 62 votes to 36 (roll call). Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have long supported Keystone XL, and Ernst possibly owes as much as any member of the Senate to campaign spending by the Koch brothers, who stand to profit from more tar sands oil extraction in Canada.

The Keystone XL bill now goes back to the U.S. House, which will surely send it to President Barack Obama. (All four Iowans supported the pipeline bill that cleared the House earlier this month.) A White House spokesman repeated today that the president intends to veto the current bill.

Before today’s vote on final passage, senators rejected more than a dozen amendments to the Keystone XL bill. You can find all the roll calls here. Democrats offered most of the defeated amendments, which went down primarily along party lines. For instance, Grassley and Ernst helped their GOP colleagues reject Sheldon Whitehouse’s amendment, which was designed to “require campaign finance disclosures from companies benefitting from the Alberta oil sands.” Other defeated Democratic amendments would have further studied potential safety problems and threats to public health associated with the Keystone XL pipeline, allowed permitting agencies “to consider new circumstances and new information,” or delayed the effective date of the bill until the President could rule out “certain negative impacts” from its construction.

In what may be the first Senate vote where Grassley and Ernst landed on opposite sides, Grassley was one of just three GOP senators to support Heidi Heitkamp’s amendment that would have extended renewable energy tax credits. Ernst was among the 51 Republicans who voted against that amendment, which would benefit Iowa’s wind power industry. Both Grassley and Ernst voted against Bernie Sanders’ effort to expand incentives for installing solar power and Tom Udall’s amendment on establishing a federal renewable electricity standard.

A few Republican amendments also fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage during the Keystone XL debate. Without Democratic votes, support from Grassley, Ernst, and most of the GOP caucus wasn’t enough to win approval of Ted Cruz’s amendment promoting crude oil exports, Jerry Moran’s effort to “delist the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species,” or Lisa Murkowski’s amendment, which would “free up areas like ANWR [Alaska National Wildlife Refuge] and others that have been designated by the federal government as wilderness regions to potential drilling.” Yesterday and today, Grassley and Ernst helped the Republican majority either to reject or to table a series of amendments related to climate change. Puneet Kollipara and David Malakoff described those amendments and votes in this Science magazine article.

During Senate sessions last week, Grassley and Ernst voted for language stating that climate change is “real” and “not a hoax” but against various statements indicating that human activity contributes to climate change.  

Another Democrat is moving closer to a Congressional bid in Iowa’s first district. The Daily Iowan reported several days ago that Ravi Patel “is assembling campaign operatives and meeting with influential donors in Eastern Iowa in preparation for the run.” He is best known as principal and president of Hawkeye Hotels, a fast-growing company his parents established. Pat Rynard wrote on the Iowa Starting Line blog that Patel “has built connections from holding many fundraisers for Democratic candidates” and is “an entrepreneur involved in many startup businesses.”

If he runs for Congress, Patel told the Daily Iowan that his campaign “would be data-driven and heavy on social media.” His biggest potential weakness would probably be his youth (current age: 29). Iowans have nominated some young candidates who faced competitive primaries against more experienced rivals, most recently Ben Lange, the GOP’s 2012 nominee in IA-01. But despite a lot of excitement on social media, State Representative Anesa Kajtazovic didn’t make much headway with IA-01 Democratic voters, finishing fourth in the 2014 primary. Anecdotally, many Democrats liked Kajtazovic but questioned whether she had enough experience for the job she was seeking. Patel would also be competing against others who have more longstanding ties to the district. Although he owns a home in Cedar Rapids now, he has spent most of his life in either Burlington or Iowa City, which are located in the second Congressional district.

The front-runner in the Democratic primary remains Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon, who last week added her first labor union endorsement to the long list of sate legislators backing her second bid for Congress. After the jump I’ve posted the press release announcing the Teamsters Local 238 endorsement of Vernon. That local did not endorse in the 2014 primary to represent IA-01, but two other Teamsters locals backed the eventual winner Pat Murphy. Note: the press release mentions that Teamsters Local 238 has approximately 6,000 members. A representative for the union told me that between 2,000 and 2,500 of those members live in the IA-01 counties.

Other Democrats considering a bid in IA-01 include former Governor Chet Culver, former State Senator Swati Dandekar (who placed third in the 2014 primary), and former Saturday Night Live actor Gary Kroeger. His most recent blog post, which I’ve excerpted below, takes a quick look at the history of America’s major political parties with a view to reducing the “vitriol in our disagreements.” Kroeger posted today on Facebook that if elected to Congress, he would push for creating a national jobs program inspired by a non-profit foundation he profiled at his blog a couple of years ago.

Any comments about the IA-01 race are welcome in this thread. Republican blogger Craig Robinson pointed out recently that GOP incumbent Rod Blum will benefit tremendously from having U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley on the ballot in 2016.

It’s also worth noting that at least three and perhaps as many as six battleground Iowa Senate races will be located within IA-01 next year. State Senator Jeff Danielson will seek a fourth term in Senate district 30, covering parts of Waterloo and Cedar Falls; he faced well-funded challengers in his last two re-election campaigns. State Senator Mary Jo Wilhelm won by just 126 votes in Senate district 26 in 2012. I expect the GOP to target that district, half of which is in IA-01 and half in IA-04. Republicans are less likely to mount a serious challenge against either State Senator Liz Mathis in Senate district 34 or State Senator Brian Schoenjahn in Senate district 32, but a surprise retirement would instantly make either of those races competitive. Meanwhile, Democrats are likely to target Senate district 28, where GOP State Senator Mike Breitbach won by only 17 votes in 2012. First-term Senator Dan Zumbach could also face a serious challenger in Senate district 48. After the jump I’ve posted a map showing all the Iowa Senate district lines. UPDATE: Perhaps I should also have mentioned Democratic State Senator Steve Sodders (SD-36) and Republican Tim Kapucian (SD-38), who will be up for re-election in 2016 as well in counties that are part of IA-01. I haven’t heard of potentially strong challengers in either Iowa Senate district, but that could change before next spring.

The new Republican-controlled Congress continues to prioritize legislation desired by the oil and gas sector. Today the U.S. House approved by 277 votes to 133 a bill to “expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports,” Timothy Cama and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill.

Under the bill, the Energy Department would have 30 days to review an application, starting from when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completes its environmental review for a project. […]

“There is no backlog or delay at the [Department of Energy] to speak of,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “So legislation to impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on DOE as suggested by the underlying bill is simply unnecessary.”

The issue has taken on a new urgency in recent years as Republicans and some Democrats have started to see natural gas exports as a way to help eastern European countries avoid having to buy gas from Russia, thus weakening the power that Russia holds through its near monopoly on gas in the region. […]

The Obama administration said Johnson’s bill isn’t necessary after a series of steps the Energy Department took last year in an attempt to streamline the review process.

Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) all supported today’s legislation. Although 41 Democrats joined the GOP caucus in voting yes, Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed the bill. He also voted against a similar bill House members approved last year. Loebsack recently was assigned a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Yesterday and today the U.S. House passed two batches of bills aimed at curbing human trafficking. All four Iowans were present as representatives approved some bills by voice vote and others by unanimous roll-call votes. Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill on January 26,

One of the bills passed by voice vote, H.R. 515, would require the Department of Homeland Security to notify foreign countries when a registered sex offender travels abroad. It would further formally request notification from foreign governments when a known child sex offender is trying to enter the U.S. […]

Another measure passed by voice vote, H.R. 468, would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use grants for training staff on the effects of human trafficking among runaway and homeless children. […]

In addition to HHS, State Department employees would receive training on human trafficking under a separate bill passed by voice vote, H.R. 357.  

Marcos followed up with this story on today’s Congressional action:

One of the measures passed by voice vote on Tuesday, H.R. 285, would establish penalties for people who knowingly sell advertisements to exploit human trafficking victims. […]

Meanwhile, H.R. 159, passed by voice vote, would encourage states to adopt “safe harbor” laws for trafficked children to seek welfare services by giving them preference in applications for Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) grants.

Three of the 12 measures would require training for employees at the State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services departments. One bill passed by voice vote on Tuesday, H.R. 460, would require the Department of Homeland Security to implement a human trafficking awareness program for agency employees. Agencies eligible for the training program would include the Transportation Security Administration, and Customs and Border Protection. […]

Another bill, H.R. 350, passed by voice vote, would direct the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking to issue a report on the best strategies to prevent children from becoming human trafficking victims. And H.R. 181, passed by voice vote, would authorize the attorney general to create grants for improving deterrence programs for human trafficking of children.

Members debated two bills Monday afternoon but waited to conduct roll call votes until Tuesday due to inclement weather canceling the previous day’s votes. One measure, H.R. 469, passed 410-0, would create additional reporting requirements for state child welfare systems for human trafficking. The other, H.R. 246, passed 411-0, would amend existing law to replace the term “child prostitution” with “child sex trafficking, including child prostitution,” in reporting categories for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

According to Marcos, versions of some of these bills passed the House during the last Congress but did not clear the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate. New Republican Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn indicated that he will push for scheduled votes on the trafficking bills.  

Governor Terry Branstad’s office released this statement in the early afternoon:

Gov. Branstad fell ill at an event today at DuPont Pioneer. An ambulance was called and he was transported to Methodist hospital in Des Moines. The governor was conscious and alert during the transport to the hospital. The governor had been suffering from the effects of a cold for a couple of days.

More details will be provided as they become available.

WHO-TV reported, “A witness said the governor had been slurring his words during his remarks and then was in physical discomfort and moaning as staff assisted.”

The governor’s spokesman Jimmy Centers told the Des Moines Register that “while Branstad was being transported, paramedics took his vitals, and initial tests indicated ‘the spell was caused by a seasonal illness.’” Since the governor remains alert, Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds is not serving as acting governor.

UPDATE: Apparently Branstad will be hospitalized overnight as a precaution. At his regular weekly press conference this morning, the governor said he and Reynolds had been fighting a “bad cold” for a “couple of weeks or more.”  

What has seemed likely since Christmas Eve was confirmed on Friday: Iowa’s non-profit health insurance coop is liquidating. At the end of this post, I’ve enclosed the e-mail CoOportunity Health members received on January 23. Members are strongly encouraged to enroll in other health insurance before February 15, the end of 2015 Open Enrollment under the federal health care reform law. In Iowa, only Coventry now sells policies through the exchange, allowing eligible people to receive federal tax subsidies to help cover the cost of insurance.

CoOportunity Health was created to sell individual, family, and small-business health insurance policies in Iowa and Nebraska. Its membership greatly exceeded projections, but so did the costs of insuring a population that had largely been uninsured before the 2010 Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014.

Some politicians, like Senator Joni Ernst, have nothing to say about CoOportunity’s collapse beyond empty talking points about Obamacare. Others, like Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02), are digging for answers on why federal officials didn’t do more to help the health insurance coop survive. Those are important questions.

As far as I can tell, no one in a position of power is examining how decisions by Iowa officials stacked the deck against CoOportunity ever becoming solvent. Did Iowa’s insurance commissioner Nick Gerhart seal the coop’s fate by bending over backwards to suit the 800-pound gorilla in Iowa’s health insurance market (Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield)? Now that CoOportunity’s failure leaves only one company selling policies on Iowa’s health insurance exchange, what is Gerhart’s “plan B” if Coventry decides later this year against continuing to participate on the exchange for 2016?

A few minutes ago, the Des Moines Register announced the 2015 route for the Register’s Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI). None of the ten most-guessed overnight towns are on this year’s ride; many people wrongly predicted a southerly route after last year’s northern passage. Instead, most of the route will traverse northern Iowa again this year, until the last two nights in Coralville and Davenport. Muscatine boosters, buoyed by unsubstantiated rumors, will have to hope for next year.

A 15-mile gravel loop will be an option for riders on July 20, added this year to honor the memory of Steve Hed. The legendary bike designer passed away last November.

Overnight stops are after the jump, along with daily mileage totals and feet of climb. Three overnight stops on this year’s route were part of the original RAGBRAI in 1973.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Many prospective presidential candidates are speaking at the Iowa Freedom Summit today. I’ll update this post later with clips and highlights.

An MSNBC story on Representative Steve King (IA-04) made a splash yesterday with this revelation:

King is not above gloating. His staff kept a running list of some 12-16 prominent Republicans who’ve leveled personal criticisms against him. The congressman said he went over it himself the other day, just for old time’s sake.

“Their agenda [on immigration] has been marginalized,” a smiling King told msnbc. “Mine’s been strengthened.”

True, but that’s to the long-term detriment of the country and the Republican Party.

Who do you think is on King’s enemies list? Probably not many Iowans, aside from Doug Gross.

On the 42nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade, the U.S. House approved a bill that could make abortion an unaffordable choice for many women. Emily Crockett reported for RH Reality Check,

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act” would make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.

The bill, HR 7, would also go much further than Hyde by prohibiting women or small businesses from using tax credits or subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to pay for any health insurance plan that covers abortion care.

The bill has no exceptions for a patient whose health is endangered by her pregnancy. […]

The effect of the bill could be to cause the entire insurance market to drop abortion coverage, according to a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Traditionally, health insurance policies have covered abortion services, because doing so is much less costly than covering prenatal care and labor/delivery.  

The bill passed by 242 votes to 179 (roll call), with only one Republican opposed and three Democrats in favor. Iowa’s U.S. representatives split on party lines: Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted yes, while Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. I enclosed King’s statement below and will update if I see any other official comment from the Iowans in Congress.

House leaders had originally planned to pass a 20-week abortion ban on the Roe v Wade anniversary, to coincide with an annual March for Life in Washington, but that bill was pulled at the last minute “following a revolt from female members who objected to language regarding exceptions for rape.” The bill would have allowed abortion in the case of rape only if the victim had reported the alleged crime to police. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise says the bill will come back to the floor at a later date. On Wednesday, fifteen of the sixteen Republicans who spoke in favor of the 20-week abortion ban were men.

Governor Terry Branstad will expand the number of Medicaid recipients who are covered under private managed-care companies, Tony Leys reported for the January 21 Des Moines Register.

Details are scarce on how the plan would work, but Branstad projects it would save $51.3 million from January through June 2016, its first six months. […]

“Through better coordinated care in Medicaid, focused on improving outcomes, Iowa can better serve Medicaid patients and provide more predictability for Iowa taxpayers,” [Branstad spokesman Jimmy Centers] wrote in an email to the Register. “The growth of Medicaid spending in Iowa is unsustainable over the long-term and it limits Iowa’s ability to provide high-quality and stable health services to our most vulnerable residents as well as our ability to invest state taxpayer dollars in other key programs aimed at growing our state.” […]

Rep. Linda Miller, a Bettendorf Republican who serves on the [Human Resources] committee, said most of the savings would come from improved care, so Medicaid members wouldn’t need hospitalization or other expensive services as often. She said legislators want to make sure the shift won’t lead to cuts in services or in payment rates to medical providers.

Amy McCoy, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Human Services, said the state and federal governments spend about $4.2 billion annually – including $1.5 billion of state money – on Iowa’s Medicaid program. That’s up 73 percent since 2003, she said.

If Branstad’s plan really would save $51.3 million each year (I am skeptical), that figure represents a little more than 1 percent of Medicaid’s total annual costs in Iowa, or about 3.4 percent of the state’s share of Medicaid costs.

Approximately 564,000 Iowans are now covered under the Medicaid program. It’s not clear how many of them would be shifted to private companies; the Department of Human Services is expected to release a plan in March. Magellan of Iowa has offered “a broad range of mental health and substance abuse services” to most Iowans on Medicaid since 1995. Meridian Health Plan has been providing coverage to some Medicaid recipients since 2012 “through a contract with the Iowa Department of Human Services.” Currently about 17,000 beneficiaries are covered through Meridian.

Leys quoted Iowa House Republican Dave Heaton as saying the governor can implement this change without legislative approval.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – Who is old enough to remember when Republicans demonized the idea of “managed care” as evil interference between doctors and their patients?

Kathie Obradovich reported in today’s Des Moines Register that former Governor Chet Culver is considering a run for Congress in either Iowa’s first or third district:

“Well, you know, we do have family roots in Cedar Rapids and McGregor, and I spent a lot of time as a kid in northeast Iowa,” Culver said in an interview. His father, former U.S. Sen. John Culver, grew up in Cedar Rapids and was elected to Congress from there in 1964.

In addition to family history, Culver also pointed to a more recent connection he has with the 1st District: His work as governor toward recovering from the 2008 floods. His jobs and infrastructure program, I-JOBS, put nearly $500 million into flood recovery, he said.

“I feel really good about helping communities like Cedar Rapids get back on their feet, and I think if you talk to most people over there, they will acknowledge the fact that without our administration stepping up, recovery would have been even more difficult,” Culver said.

Culver says he hasn’t made any “final decision” on running in 2016 or potentially even waiting until 2018. If he decides to move forward, he said, he expects the next step would be an exploratory committee.

The Des Moines rumor mill has long considered Culver a possible candidate for the U.S. House or Senate someday. Although it never occurred to me that he might run in IA-01, the idea has some logic. The I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program was great for Iowa generally but especially for the Cedar Rapids area. Democrats have a voter registration advantage in the first district but are slightly outnumbered by Republicans in the third district. Of the two newly-elected Iowans in the U.S. House, Rod Blum looks like a weaker incumbent. David Young has more experience in Congress and close ties to Senator Chuck Grassley, who will be at the top of the ballot in 2016.

More than a dozen prominent Iowa Democrats have already endorsed Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon for Congress in 2016. Gary Kroeger may enter the IA-01 Democratic primary as well.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Is there an opening for Culver in either Congressional district?

Continuing the Republican push to make fossil fuels projects a priority for this Congress, yesterday the U.S. House approved the “Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act” by by 253 votes to 169 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

Under the measure, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be ordered to approve or deny a [natural gas] pipeline application within 12 months.  Agencies responsible for issuing licenses or permits must act within 90 days after FERC issues a final environmental review, though the deadline could be extended by 30 days if the agency demonstrates it can’t finish in time.

But if the agency doesn’t make a decision by then, a pipeline would automatically be approved.

Republicans said the legislation would put pressure on agencies to avoid unnecessary delays for natural gas pipelines. […]

The White House issued a veto threat against the measure, saying it would “create conflicts” with current requirements and force agencies to make rushed decisions or deny applications entirely because they don’t have enough information by the established deadlines.

All the Republicans present supported this bill, including Iowans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04). They were joined by fourteen House Democrats, but Dave Loebsack (IA-02) stuck with the majority of his caucus in opposing this bill. Loebsack also voted against a similar bill that the House approved in 2013. I haven’t seen any public comment on yesterday’s vote, but I will update this post as needed.

The U.S. Senate considered a series of amendments today to a bill that would force construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Democrats know they will be unable to block passage of the bill, but are trying to get senators on record acknowledging the existence of climate change. One amendment that would “express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax” passed by 98 votes to 1 (roll call). The yes camp included Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst as well as possible Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. Laura Barron-Lopez reported for The Hill that most Republicans rejected a separate Democratic amendment which stated that “climate change is real and human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” Grassley, Ernst, Cruz, Paul, and Rubio were all in the “nay” group on that amendment. From Barron-Lopez’s story:

In an attempt to provide political cover for Republicans, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) put forward an alternative that expressed the sense of the Senate that the Keystone oil pipeline would not significantly impact the environment or contribute to global emissions. The provision included a line stating that humans contribute to climate change but without the word “significantly.”

Fifteen Republicans voted for that amendment, including Paul, making him the only 2016 contender to go on record as saying that human beings contribute to climate change.

Neither Grassley nor Ernst voted for the Hoeven amendment (roll call). I assume that if they do not accept any human contribution to climate change, they would not be open to any government policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  

President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address later this evening to a joint session of Congress. Newly-elected Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa will deliver the Republican response afterwards. It’s her chance to make a first impression on many politically-minded Americans who live outside Iowa, and lots of people were reportedly searching for information about her today. This thread is for any comments related to either Obama’s or Ernst’s speech. I’ll update this post later with highlights and Iowa reaction.

Representative Steve King got bent out of shape by the news that a “DREAMer” (undocumented immigrant who was brought to this country as a child) will sit with First Lady Michelle Obama tonight.

#Obama perverts “prosecutorial discretion” by inviting a deportable to sit in place of honor at #SOTU w/1st Lady. I should sit with Alito.

It’s bad enough that King frequently refers to undocumented immigrants as “illegals.” A person should not be labeled a “deportable.” Anyway, under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Ana Zamora is not “deportable.”

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland has a longstanding policy of not commenting on women politicians’ attire, but Ernst’s camouflage pumps compel me to break that rule. Ernst knows her audience, and whoever designed those shoes is going to make a fortune.

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa reaction to the president’s speech is after the jump. Ernst’s comments were a barely-revised version of her stump speech from last year’s Senate campaign. Radio Iowa mentioned some highlights, including Ernst advocating for the Keystone XL pipeline. Cristina Marcos of The Hill focused on the “folksy” aspects of Ernst’s performance, including her anecdotes about working at Hardee’s as a teenager and wearing bread bags over her only pair of shoes. On social media I’ve seen lots of Iowans debating how common it used to be for children to wear bread bags over their shoes to prevent water damage. I don’t remember seeing it when I was growing up, but I was a “city girl.”

Pat Rynard sees Ernst as a likely GOP vice presidential nominee in 2016. I think that’s out of the question, because she is way too inexperienced, and the Sarah Palin experiment didn’t work out well for Republicans. Ernst can’t be the VP nominee in 2020 either, because she would have to choose between that and running for re-election to the U.S. Senate. Maybe in 2024 if Iowans re-elect her in 2020. Anyway, at the end of this post I enclosed excerpts from Rynard’s case for Ernst as a VP candidate.

The most memorable line from the president’s speech was reportedly ad-libbed.

THIRD UPDATE: Des Moines-based RAYGUN shirts is already out with a new design that reads, “IOWA! YOU SAY BREAD AISLE, WE SAY SHOE STORE.” I think mocking the anecdote is a mistake for Democrats; doing so only plays into Republican narratives about liberal elitism. Iowa Rabbi David Kaufman is right: “Anyone who cares for the poor” and “wouldn’t walk up to a homeless person and insult their clothing” should not be making fun of Ernst over her bread bag anecdote. That said, it’s fair game to point out that Ernst opposes many policies (such as Medicaid expansion or a minimum wage increase) which would help the working poor and their children.

Starting next year, Iowans who have a driver’s license or other state-issued identification will be able to register to vote online. From a press release the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office sent out this afternoon:

(DES MOINES)  Today, the Iowa Voter Registration Commission adopted a rule that will allow eligible voters who possess a valid driver’s license or state ID to apply for their voter registration on-line.  This system is scheduled to be in place by early 2016. […]

On-line voter registration will be available to eligible voters with a valid Iowa driver’s license or a state issued ID.  This represents 93% of the state’s eligible voters.  The goal is to continue to work on ways to expand this opportunity in the future so that on-line registration will eventually be available to all eligible voters, including those without driver’s licenses.

Secretary Pate said, “This is a significant step.  We had a productive meeting with the DOT and are confident we can be up and going before the 2016 election.  We’ll continue to work further on the issue to expand voter registration to other groups for on-line access.”

The voter registration application will be hosted on both the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Secretary of State website.

Jason Noble reported for the Des Moines Register,

Because the system will rely on electronic signatures on file with the DOT [Department of Transportation], online registration will be available only to Iowans with a driver license or non-operator ID. […]

The potential lack of access has raised concerns among some voting-rights advocates and appeared to trouble Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Troy Price, a member of the commission.

“Are there ways that we’ll be able to capture those folks who currently don’t have a driver’s license?” Price wondered aloud during the meeting.

A growing number of young people are in no hurry to obtain drivers licenses for various reasons. In addition, Iowa’s aging population includes more and more people who can’t or don’t drive anymore. I’m glad Pate is promising that his office will keep working to reach Iowans without a driver’s license, but Democrats should not take their eye off this ball.

What better way to launch a new blog than with a scoop? Pat Rynard delivered that when his Iowa Starting Line website came online yesterday, with this post about Gary Kroeger considering the Democratic primary in Iowa’s first Congressional district. On his own blog, Gary Has Issues, Kroeger describes himself as follows:

First and foremost, I am the father of two wonderful boys.  I am also a son, a brother, and the creative director at an advertising agency in Cedar Falls, Iowa.  I write an Op-Ed column for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, and in my past, present and future, I have been an actor, a writer, television host, announcer, voice over artist, producer, restaurateur, emcee, activist, and fundraiser.

Judging by his comments to Rynard, Kroeger would position himself as the progressive candidate in a Democratic primary:

Born in Cedar Falls, he moved back to his hometown in 2003 to give his two young sons a more stable life. At 57, he says he’s kept himself involved in local politics by hosting coffees for candidates, lobbying a bit on some statehouse legislation, and writing the left-leaning column for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. That got him thinking about taking his passion for politics to a bigger stage.

“I have a strong voice and a capability to persuade people to listen better than most in the political arena,” Kroeger says of what advantages he thinks he’d bring to a campaign. “I believe I have something that may be missing. I’ve been watching politics my whole life. It’s a whole lot of dull. Legislators are not persuading, not convincing people, not getting people to think.”

As for the issues he would run on, civil rights would anchor his platform. “Civil rights and justice for all, for gay marriage, for women, for minorities. It’s what defines progressivism. And then you go out from there. It touches on the right to breathe clean air, it lends itself to environmental justice, to economic justice.” On where Kroeger thinks his party goes wrong, he says, “Democrats tend to get soft to win. No one draws a line in the sand. The Constitution guarantees civil rights to all. A woman should have domain over her body. I’m not going to go away from these ideas. It defines being a progressive.”

Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon rolled out her campaign in IA-01 last week with endorsements from some liberal Democrats in the Iowa legislature, but others have expressed doubt over whether she is committed to progressive values. For the most part, I believe competitive primaries make parties stronger, so I welcome a good, clean debate between Vernon, Kroeger, and anyone else who wants to make Representative Rod Blum a one-termer. May the best Democrat win.

Technically, it’s still a long weekend for some people, so here’s an open thread for all topics.

Establishing a holiday to honor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a long road, as Ben Kamisar reported for The Hill yesterday:

The King holiday used to be controversial, only passing the House more than ten years after Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) filed the first bill calling for a day to commemorate the slain civil rights icon. The measure eventually passed in 1983. Ninety representatives and 22 senators voted against it. […]

There are only six current members of Congress who previously voted against creating a national holiday for King. Another small handful did so at the state level.

The six who cast votes against the national holiday are all Republicans: Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John McCain (Ariz.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah), as well as Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) and Hal Rogers (Ky.). Shelby cast his vote as a Democrat, before he switched parties. […]

A Grassley spokesperson noted that the Senator has been “very active in several African American causes,” including efforts to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act when he joined the Senate in the early 1980s. More recently, he has advocated for black farmers who had been discriminated against when applying for financial help.

“Senator Grassley’s vote against an MLK Day holiday was purely an economic decision both in the cost to the broader economy in lost productivity, and the cost to the taxpayers with the federal government closed,” the aide told The Hill in an email.  

Not one of Grassley’s finer moments, that’s for sure.

Bleeding Heartland has compiled other links related to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. here, here, here, here, and here.

I haven’t seen the movie “Selma” yet. For those who have, what did you think?

Earlier today the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee selected Dr. Andy McGuire to lead the party for the next two years. McGuire was the favorite going into the election and won on the third ballot against Kurt Meyer. Another candidate for state chair, former Congressional candidate Jim Mowrer, then ran for first vice chair and was elected on the first ballot.

Dr. McGuire has been active in Iowa Democratic politics for more than 20 years, since working on her sister-in-law Sheila McGuire’s 1994 Congressional campaign in Iowa’s fifth district. (Sheila McGuire later served as state party chair for a term.) In the political world, Andy McGuire is best-known for being Mike Blouin’s running mate during the 2006 Democratic primary for governor. The pro-choice mother of seven helped balance the ticket, as many Democratic activists were concerned about Blouin’s stance on abortion rights.

In recent years, McGuire has often been mentioned as a possible Congressional candidate, but she ruled out running in Iowa’s third district in 2016 if elected to lead the party. Many central Iowa Democrats expect her to run for governor in 2018.

Although I favored one of the other candidates, McGuire brings a lot to the table as a state party leader. My first thoughts on the pros and cons of her election are after the jump.  

State Central Committee members of the Iowa Democratic Party meet tomorrow to choose a new state chair for the next election cycle. Four candidates are seeking the job: Dr. Andy McGuire, Kurt Meyer, Jim Mowrer, and Tim Tracy. The competition itself is a welcome change from the Iowa Democratic Party’s standard operating procedure. For as long as I can remember, the State Central Committee has never considered multiple candidates for state chair. Members have merely rubber-stamped the choice of Senator Tom Harkin or the Democratic governor at the time.

Bleeding Heartland asked each of the candidates to make their best case for becoming the next Iowa Democratic leader. Some party insiders have also shared e-mail correspondence sent to State Central Committee members on behalf of one or the other candidates. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, Attorney General Tom Miller, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and former Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) are among those who endorsed McGuire. Former Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Norm Sterzenbach has urged party leaders to pick Mowrer.

After the jump I’ve enclosed the arguments for choosing McGuire, Meyer, Mowrer, or Tracy (listed in alphabetical order). I don’t know any of them well, but I’ve met each of them and think highly of all. If I were on the State Central Committee, I would lean toward Meyer. The party needs a full-time chair, rather than a leader who would have to juggle those duties with another job. Moreover, I think choosing another Des Moines insider with the strongest connections to VIPs and major donors sends a “business as usual” message. Bleeding Heartland 2laneIA raised another concern about McGuire: she is a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton for president. It would be healthier for the Iowa caucuses if party leaders remained neutral before a nominee is determined. Although I don’t expect any strong competition for Clinton here, I wouldn’t want other potential candidates to fear the state party will stack the deck against them.

We need the state Democratic leader to focus on building the party up at the county level. All of the candidates talked about that in their presentations to the State Central Committee. But Meyer has done the most work in the trenches, organizing and motivating activists in several northern Iowa counties. That work contributed to Mitchell County being the whitest county in the U.S. to vote for Barack Obama (and Howard County the fifth-whitest to favor Obama over Mitt Romney), as well as to State Senator Mary Jo Wilhelm’s narrow victory over Republican Senator Merlin Bartz in 2012. Without Wilhelm, there’s no Iowa Senate majority. Mowrer and McGuire have strong records on fundraising too, but I don’t see fundraising as the most urgent task for the Iowa Democratic Party right now.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to delay or roll back various portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Almost the entire Republican caucus, including Iowans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04), supported the bill, which passed by 271 votes to 154 (roll call). Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) missed the votes in order to attend President Barack Obama’s visit to Cedar Falls. Last week he voted for the Dodd-Frank measure when it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, so we can assume he would have joined the 29 House Democrats who backed it this week.

Also on January 14, the House approved by 236 votes to 191 a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the 2015 fiscal year, which ends on September 30. During the floor debate, Republicans passed “a series of contentious amendments that take aim at facets of Obama’s immigration policy,” Rebecca Shabad and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill. Seven Republicans defected on an amendment that would “choke off funding for Obama’s executive action announced in November. Then 26 Republicans voted against an amendment to withhold funding for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which some undocumented immigrants are temporarily shielded from deportation. Blum, Young, and King voted with the GOP majority in support of both controversial amendments before supporting the final DHS funding bill. (Based on his past voting record, Loebsack surely would have stood with most House Democrats, who opposed the immigration language in the DHS funding bill.)

I have not seen any lengthy comment from Rod Blum, just this tweet: “Proud to vote to fully fund the DHS today while stopping the President’s unconstitutional executive actions on immigration.” Press releases from Young and King are after the jump. In a video statement, King hailed the DHS funding bill and said it included provisions he has proposed.

Speaking of King, he introduced two constitutional bills this week. His “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015” would repeal automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to parents who are not legal residents. That’s been a longtime goal of King’s, but to date Republican Congressional leaders have not shown any interest in moving forward. In fact, King’s previous comments on repealing birthright citizenship are one reason he wasn’t picked to chair the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration after Republicans took control of the lower chamber in the 2010 elections.

King’s other proposal would repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorizes the federal income tax. He has long been a vocal supporter of the so-called “Fair Tax,” which would replace federal income taxes with a value-added tax on most goods and services. It’s a monumentally bad idea.

Some of the most prominent Democratic legislators living in Iowa’s first Congressional district have endorsed Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon, a day after she announced she will run for Congress again in 2016. The group includes lawmakers from the three largest metro areas in IA-01:

Cedar Rapids (State Senators Liz Mathis and Rob Hogg, State Representatives Art Staed, Kirsten Running-Marquardt and Liz Bennett)

Waterloo/Cedar Falls (State Senator Bill Dotzler and State Representative Timi Brown-Powers)

Dubuque (Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum)

Support from Mathis is particularly noteworthy, because many Iowa Democrats encouraged her to run for Congress in 2014. Mathis endorsed Vernon shortly before last year’s five-way primary.

Former State Senator Jack Hatch and several current lawmakers who live outside IA-01 also endorsed Vernon today: State Senators Joe Bolkcom, Bob Dvorsky, and Rich Taylor, and State Representatives Vicki Lensing, Mary Mascher, and Sally Stutsman. All besides Taylor represent parts of Johnson County, which is part of the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City corridor.

The full press release from Vernon’s campaign is after the jump. It sends a strong signal to any other Democrats who may be considering this race, including former State Senator Swati Dandekar and Ravi Patel, the president of Hawkeye Hotels.

Republican leaders of the U.S. House and Senate announced today that newly-elected Senator Joni Ernst will deliver the televised response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 20. Some liberals are already laughing, but from where I’m sitting, she’s a perfect choice. One thing we learned about Ernst last year: she knows how to read from a prepared text. She’ll stick to her message, and she won’t have to answer any unscripted questions about that message:

“Our folks back home sent us to Washington D.C., with a clear mission. And that mission is to get to work. That mission is to craft and implement good policies and good solutions,” Ernst said. “We want to ensure that the America we are building leaves a stronger economy and more opportunity for our children and our grandchildren.”

When a reporter tried to follow up with Ernst after the announcement, Boehner jokingly batted the question away.

“No,” Boehner said to laughter from the press corps.

Ernst provided material for a lot of late-night television jokes last year with her “Squeal” ad, and I expect GOP speechwriters to sneak in some farm references next Tuesday. If the big bad liberal media are seen to make fun of the “ordinary farm girl,” they will only generate more sympathy for Ernst among Iowans. Anyway, Senator Marco Rubio set the bar low with his fumbling, water bottle-grabbing performance after Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address. Surely Ernst can do a lot better than that.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – Jon Neiderbach asked today, “Can you name any Iowa politician who rose so high so fast?” I sure can’t think of any. Only four and a half years ago, Ernst was hardly known outside Montgomery County. In fact, if Terry Branstad hadn’t picked the little-known Kim Reynolds to be his running mate in 2010, Ernst would still be the Montgomery County auditor. She only ran for the Iowa Senate because Reynolds resigned the seat after being elected lieutenant governor.

Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon announced this morning that she will run for Congress again in Iowa’s first district. I enclosed her campaign’s press release after the jump. Her official website is here, and Vernon for Congress is also on Facebook and Twitter.

Vernon finished second to Pat Murphy in the 2014 five-way Democratic primary to represent IA-01. She then became the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, while Murphy narrowly lost the general election to Republican Rod Blum.  

IA-01 is a top target for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for 2016. Among Iowa’s four districts, it is the most Democratic-leaning with a partisan voting index of D+5. According to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, the 20 counties in IA-01 contain 158,190 active registered Democrats, 135,957 Republicans, and 192,679 no-party voters. Turnout is typically about 30 percent larger in a presidential year than in a midterm and includes more voters from demographic groups expected to favor Democratic candidates.

I expect a competitive primary in IA-01 again, as Blum is considered vulnerable. Although Joni Ernst already broke Iowa’s political glass ceiling, many Democrats will want to elect their own woman to Congress, which could work in Vernon’s favor.

Among the other Democrats who ran in this district last year, only former State Senator Swati Dandekar is rumored to be seriously considering another Congressional bid. Both she and Vernon have a base in Linn County, which could create an opening for a candidate with strong appeal in either the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area or Dubuque.

During last year’s primary, some activists criticized Vernon for having been a registered Republican until 2009. Her work as Jack Hatch’s running mate should put to rest any questions about her commitment to the Democratic Party. It’s unfortunate that Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign didn’t agree to let Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds debate Vernon, though.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the National Republican Congressional Committee’s comment on Vernon’s announcement.

Even after retiring as Iowa Workforce Development director (effective this past Sunday), Teresa Wahlert continues to leave her mark on state government. Yesterday Administrative Law Judge Susan Ackerman filed a lawsuit against the State of Iowa, Wahlert, and two judges Wahlert promoted. After the jump I’ve enclosed excerpts from David Pitt’s report for the Associated Press. Ackerman claims Wahlert “interfered with the bureau’s work, attempting to turn a fair and impartial administration of unemployment benefits into a process that is biased in favor of employers over employees.”

That makes not one, not two, but three pending lawsuits against the State of Iowa in which Wahlert is a central figure. Former Workers Compensation Commissioner Chris Godfrey named Wahlert as a co-defendant in his 2012 lawsuit against the state, alleging (among other things) that she “ostracized” him after he resisted pressure to resign before the end of his fixed term. Last year Joseph Walsh, the former Chief Administrative Law Judge for Iowa Workforce Development, sued the state and Wahlert, claiming that she had “interfere[d] with the administrative judicial process in order to favor employers,” attempted “to illegally strip [Walsh] of his merit protection,” and eventually retaliated by removing him in “a political reorganization disguised as a budget layoff.”

In addition, Wahlert was on the wrong end of a November 2014 ruling by an arbitrator, who determined that the Iowa Workforce Development director had “overstepped her bounds when she promoted a judge who had been demoted after complaints that she created a hostile work environment.”

Just last week, unemployment appeals Judge Marlon Mormann announced his early retirement, telling the Associated Press that he was “ready to be done with it” after his worst year in a 24-year career in state government. Judge Mormann and Judge Ackerman were both witnesses at Iowa Senate Oversight Committee hearings last August on Branstad administrative officials (led by Wahlert) “pressuring judges to rule against unemployed Iowans.”

Let’s not forget that Wahlert presided over the governor’s policy to close Iowa Workforce Development field offices in dozens of communities, which became an issue in a lawsuit that went all the way up to the Iowa Supreme Court.

I would guess that Wahlert’s tenure has set some kind of record for legal entanglements involving an agency director for the State of Iowa. Yet every step of the way, including the day his office announced Wahlert’s resignation, Branstad has heaped praise on her work. I’m convinced that the only reason she retired was everyone knew she’d never be confirmed to run Iowa Workforce Development again. Thank heaven for checks and balances.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady delivered his annual State of the Judiciary address to Iowa House and Senate members this morning. The full text is available here (pdf), and I’ve posted important sections after the jump. Cady hailed progress the court system is making on helping Iowa children and improving efficiency and transparency. He described ongoing initiatives to improve how Iowa courts handle family law cases and review guardianship and conservatorship laws and procedures. Cady also asked lawmakers to appropriate 4.7 percent more funding for the court system in the next fiscal year.

Cady cited recent work within the judicial branch to “better understand and address the persistence of racial disparities” in the criminal justice system–a longstanding problem in Iowa. I enclosed below reaction from Assistant House Minority Leader Ako Abdul-Samad. Abdul-Samad is one of five African-American members of the Iowa House.

Finally, the chief justice alluded to a shooting last September during a meeting of the Jackson County Board of Supervisors as he called for action “to make every courthouse in Iowa safer and more secure.”

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

It’s been a while since we had a new thread for discussing the next Iowa caucus campaign. Most of the action lately has been on the Republican side, but any comments about the presidential race are welcome in this thread. Here are some links to get the conversation started.

Mitt Romney confirmed last week that he may launch a third campaign for the presidency, even though he had previously ruled out another bid on many occasions. He leads some early polls of Republicans, but with 20 percent support or less–not impressive for someone with his level of name recognition. I can’t imagine why Republicans would ever nominate him again, or how anyone in his inner circle can believe he has a chance. Maggie Haberman and James Hohmann shed some light on that subject in “The selling of Mitt 3.0,” which you should read in full. After the jump I’ve enclosed a few excerpts from that piece and from John Dickerson’s report for Slate. Apparently some people believe that with better messaging and no incumbent president to face, Romney has a decent shot. Sounds delusional to me. Romney still has all the baggage from his last campaign. His dire predictions about the economy have proven false. Surely many of his donors and grassroots supporters will be looking for a new candidate, such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or former Florida Governor Jeb Bush or even former Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Maybe The Onion was right after all in this 2012 report: “Mitt Romney Terrified What Will Happen If He Ever Stops Running for President.”

Also on the establishment wing of the GOP, Jeb Bush has stepped down from various corporate and non-profit boards and started raising money for his new leadership PAC. Bush will have a well-funded campaign and is more electable than many of the other potential candidates, but I don’t see him as a strong contender for the Iowa caucuses. The four issues Eric Pianin identified here (Common Core, immigration, taxes, and Obamacare) will all be deal-breakers for the conservative activists who tend to show up on caucus night.  

Seeking to cash in early on anti-Jeb sentiment, some conservatives have formed a PAC and created an “EndJeb2016” website. Sounds like a fundraising and list-building scheme to me (a la Ready for Hillary), as opposed to an effort to run a real campaign against Bush in the GOP primaries.

Romney’s 2012 running mate Paul Ryan, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said this week that he will not seek the presidency in 2016. He would be a fool to try when the field is already crowded, and he can afford to wait another four or eight years.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee quit hosting his weekly show on Fox News, saying he can’t rule out another presidential bid and will make a final decision this spring. Huckabee has a huge grassroots following in Iowa, and his entry to the race would greatly complicate matters for the likes of former Senator Rick Santorum or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Santorum is promising to run “a very, very different candidacy than the last time around,” but for quite some time, many of his Iowa supporters have been looking at fresher faces like Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Craig Robinson described Huckabee as the “first love” of Iowa social conservatives. Jamie Johnson, who worked on Santorum’s 2012 campaign here, told David Weigel last week,

“I can tell you, I took Rick Santorum across the state three years ago,” Johnson says. “People loved Huckabee. They liked Santorum. There was never a heart connection between them and Santorum the way there’d been for Huckabee.”

Jindal was just in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids to meet privately with pastors. I can’t see him putting together a winning campaign in Iowa or anywhere else. Why should people support him when he’s not even popular in his (conservative) home state?

Ben Carson was caught plagiarizing part of his book America the Beautiful. He is working to “rectify the situation.” My guess is that few Iowa Republicans will care about this ethical lapse.

My pick to win the Iowa caucuses, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, has selected a likely campaign manager and will soon launch some kind of PAC.  GOP activists here will appreciate that Walker took on public sector unions, refused to expand Medicaid, and doesn’t support comprehensive immigration reform. But they won’t react well if they learn that he put the brakes on efforts to pass a “right to work” law.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Senator Rand Paul hired a presidential campaign manager this week. I still think he will bail out of the race in time to run for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2016. Kentucky law doesn’t allow him to be on the ballot for two offices in the same primary election.

Governor Terry Branstad will deliver his annual Condition of the State address to members of the Iowa House and Senate this morning at 10 am. You can watch the speech live on Iowa Public Television’s website or on IPTV World (channel 119 on Mediacom in central Iowa). The full text as prepared will be available on the governor’s official website.

Judging by yesterday’s opening remarks from state legislative leaders, Iowa House Republicans most want to see new tax reform proposals from the governor. Iowa Senate Democrats are most closely watching to see whether Branstad will propose adequate funding for education at all levels, from pre-school to K-12 to community colleges and state universities. I’ll update this post later with highlights from the day. Any comments about the governor’s speech (content or delivery) or the upcoming legislative session are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Added highlights and some reaction to the “Together We Can” speech below. James Q. Lynch created a graphic showing the words Branstad used most.

Chutzpah alert: Branstad is urging lawmakers to “bring together state agencies that have a shared interest in quality of life initiatives and invest in our parks, trails, lakes and museums.” Maybe he’s forgotten that the state legislature did that last year, before he vetoed millions of dollars that would have gone toward parks, trails, water quality programs and other amenities.

It’s also disappointing that the governor can’t quit lying about how many jobs have been created since he returned to public office.

It’s encouraging to hear the governor call for stronger efforts to protect victims of domestic violence and end bullying in schools. The devil will be in the details of those proposals. Speaking to Radio Iowa, Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum said “the anti-bullying proposal as well as the anti-domestic violence proposal will get a very good response from the Iowa Senate.” But she said the governor’s proposed education funding is “less than what we know we need in order to bring Iowa’s per pupil spending investment up to at least close the national average.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen told Radio Iowa that his caucus will continue to look for tax cuts (“a way to for Iowans to leave more of their own money in their pockets”).

SECOND UPDATE: As he did last year, the governor called for expanding access to broadband statewide. But strangely, Branstad does not plan to attend President Barack Obama’s scheduled January 14 event in Cedar Falls, where the president will “propose plans to increase affordable access to high-speed broadband internet.”

LATE UPDATE: Nate Monson, executive director for Iowa Safe Schools, characterized the governor’s anti-bullying bill as a “giant leap forward for gay youth” in Iowa. I’ve enclosed excerpts from his Des Moines Register guest editorial at the end of this post.

Benton Mackenzie passed away at home this morning, his wife Loretta Mackenzie told Brian Wellner of the Quad-City Times. Mackenzie was convicted last summer on drug charges, having grown dozens of marijuana plants in order to treat his terminal cancer. During the trial, the judge did not allow Mackenzie or his attorney to say that the defendant was seeking to use cannabis as a cancer treatment. Mackenzie was later sentenced to probation. The family had hoped to move to Oregon; Mackenzie had visited the state and received a valid Oregon medical marijuana card before his health deteriorated late last year.

Many Iowans who favor legalizing medical marijuana were outraged by the prosecution of a terminal cancer patient. State Senator Joe Bolkcom described the case as a waste of taxpayer money. During last year’s legislative session, Bolkcom defied long odds to get a baby step toward legalizing medical cannabis approved in the Iowa House and Senate. However, the new law only permits the use of cannabis oil in order to treat certain seizure disorders, and even the affected families have been unable to obtain the treatment so far.  

Thousands of Iowans are battling cancer or suffering from chronic illnesses that can be treated with cannabis or its derivatives. They should not be subject to criminal prosecution merely for attempting to obtain marijuana for personal use. Benton Mackenzie’s death may not be enough to spur a majority of lawmakers to act this year, but I hope his sad story will eventually create the political space to expand Iowa’s medical marijuana law.

Exciting times for Iowa politics watchers: the state legislature’s 2015 session began in Des Moines today. A tentative schedule for this year’s work is available here (pdf). The last day lawmakers will receive per diem expenses is on May 1, but for the past four years of divided control between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the session has always gone into overtime–sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. Bleeding Heartland previously posted details on the each chamber’s majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing committees. Click here for who’s who in the Iowa House, and here for who’s who in the Iowa Senate.

Today legislative leaders from both parties pledged to work together. After the jump I’ve enclosed the full texts of opening day remarks. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal called for making Iowa’s middle class the “focus of the 2015 session” by ensuring adequate education spending, fighting wage theft, and expanding worker training while keeping a balanced budget. He praised Governor Terry Branstad for agreeing to go back to setting K-12 school funding a year in advance, as is required by state law, but warned the governor not to make a partisan statement by proposing too little funding for education when he addresses the legislature tomorrow.

Echoing some of the priorities she named last year, Senate President Pam Jochum said building an economy that “works for everyone” means supporting families and especially children: “For too long, the well-being of children has been considered a woman’s issue.’ It is not just a ‘woman’s issue’. It is an American issue. It is an Iowan issue.” Jochum urged lawmakers to expand access to education from pre-K through college, make “quality, affordable childcare” more available across the state, and boost an initiative to “detect and help prevent mental health and developmental problems among young children.”

Iowa House Minority Leader Mark Smith said the top priorities for House Democrats are strengthening the middle class and re-vitalizing rural Iowa. In addition to expanding early childhood education and providing adequate funds for K-12 schools, Smith called for raising the minimum wage, though GOP leaders have shown no willingness to negotiate on that issue.

As has been true in recent years, top Iowa House and Senate Republicans focused on fiscal issues and mostly avoided social issues. Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen challenged his colleagues “to ensure that government do less and do it better” when “others bring forward their laundry list of funding opportunities, spending priorities, or flashy government programs.” He called for more tax cuts along the lines of a 2006 bipartisan agreement to eliminate the state tax on Social Security benefits. (Mike Owen of the Iowa Policy Project explained in a guest column for the Quad-City Times why that tax cut was passed “under false pretenses” and skewed Iowa’s tax code “further to the benefit of the wealthy.”) House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer emphasized the need to “craft a responsible budget.” She singled out the Medicaid program for criticism, claiming growth in Medicaid spending is “not sustainable” and will threaten lawmakers’ ability to invest in education, job training, infrastructure, and renewable energy. Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix called on senators to “work together to rein in spending, make cuts and reduce the size of government and lift up all Iowans in the process by reducing their tax burdens.”

None of the Republicans set a goal of undoing marriage equality, and only House Speaker Pro Tem Matt Windschitl made passing reference to other top priorities for social conservatives when he said, “Let us work together to make Iowa the best place to live, where taxes are low, jobs are abundant, education is top of the line, innocent life is protected and Second Amendment rights are fully embraced.”

Any comments about the legislative session are welcome in this thread. By the way, here’s some trivia you may not know about Speaker Paulsen.  

The Iowa legislature’s 2015 session begins today. Democrats maintained their 26 to 24 majority in the upper chamber. After the jump I’ve posted details on the Iowa Senate majority and minority leadership teams, along with all chairs, vice chairs, and members of standing Senate committees. Where relevant, I’ve noted changes from the previous committee assignments. Click here for a similar post on the new Iowa House.

I’ve also enclosed below details on the tenure of all 50 Iowa senators. The experience gap between the caucuses is striking, even more so since three of the longest-serving GOP state senators retired in 2014. Only seven of the 24 Republicans have served in either the state House or Senate for more than four years, whereas nineteen of the 26 Democrats have more than four years of legislative service. Only four of the 24 Senate Republicans have ten or more years of experience in the Iowa legislature, compared to seventeen of the 26 Democrats. No current Iowa Senate Republican has more than 20 years legislative experience, whereas six Democrats do.

Just seven of the 50 senators are women, down from ten women in the chamber two years ago. The Democratic caucus includes 20 men and six women; the Republican caucus 23 men and one woman.

All current Iowa senators are white. To my knowledge, no African-American has ever served in the Iowa Senate. CORRECTION: Bleeding Heartland reader northwest points out that I forgot Tom Mann, who represented part of Des Moines in the Iowa Senate during the 1980s.

No Latino has ever served in the Iowa House or Senate; Nathan Blake fell 18 votes short of becoming the first in 2014. No Asian-American has served in the state Senate since Swati Dandekar resigned in 2011.

Some non-political trivia: the 50 state senators include three Marks, three Bills, three Richards (who go by Rich, Rick, and Dick), two Mikes, two Toms, two Joes, and two men named Charles (one goes by Chaz).  

Sidestepping what looked like an unwinnable battle with Iowa Senate Democrats, Governor Terry Branstad announced in a press release today that Teresa Wahlert will retire as head of Iowa Workforce Development. Apparently Wahlert informed Branstad on January 9 that she would step down, effective today. Iowa Civil Rights Commission Executive Director Beth Townsend will take over as acting director of Iowa Workforce Development. After the jump I’ve posted background on Townsend as well as today’s press release about Wahlert’s retirement.

Wahlert’s tenure was rocky from the start, as she only barely was confirmed to lead the agency in 2011. Iowa Senate Democrats objected to the planned closure of staffed Iowa Workforce Development offices all over the state, a policy that Wahlert later carried out despite lawmakers’ efforts to keep the offices open. (The Iowa Supreme Court eventually ruled unanimously that Branstad acted improperly when he struck language about the field offices without vetoing the money allocated to fund them, but the offices were never reopened.)

Wahlert’s conduct is also mixed up in two lawsuits filed by former senior state employees. As if that weren’t enough, an arbitrator ruled in November that Wahlert “overstepped her bounds when she promoted a judge who had been demoted after complaints that she created a hostile work environment.” For those reasons, she certainly would not have received the 34 yes votes she needed in the Iowa Senate, had Branstad re-appointed her to her current job. Today’s official press release does not acknowledge any of the controversies surrounding Wahlert’s work. Instead, the governor and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds praised her leadership on worker training and job creation.

Final note: words attributed to Reynolds today greatly exaggerate the number of jobs created during Wahlert’s years in state government. No matter how many times real economists dismantle this zombie lie, the Branstad administration is hell-bent on counting only gross jobs created (a “fake” number), not net jobs created (which accounts for job losses as well). Townsend could do all Iowans a service by getting her new subordinates out of the fuzzy math business. As Mike Owen of the Iowa Policy Project argued here, the “political tainting” of Iowa Workforce Development is unacceptable: “IWD should be trying to determine and illustrate the actual job picture facing our state, so policy makers can make decisions in that light.”