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.