What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’ve been thinking about politically active college students who make the news for reasons other than receiving lewd photos from elected officials.

On June 8, a group of students from the University of Northern Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Iowa testified before the Iowa Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee. The students came to Des Moines to speak against spending cuts for education. The subcommittee’s ranking Republican, State Senator Shawn Hamerlinck, made the hearing newsworthy by telling the group,

“I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds.  That’s just my opinion. I want to wish you guys the best.  I want you to go home and graduate.  But this political theater, leave the circus to us OK?  Go home and enjoy yourselves.  I want to thank you for joining us and though I have to concede, your time speaking before us is kind of a tad intense.   It’s probably a pretty new experience.  You probably prepared for it for days and you sat there in front of us trying to make sure your remarks were just right, and that’s a good thing.  But actually spending your time worrying about what we’re doing up here, I don’t want you to do that.  Go back home.  Thanks guys.”

We wouldn’t want any civic involvement on our college campuses, would we? Hamerlinck didn’t get the memo: you’re supposed to at least pretend to encourage young people to get involved in the political process. But he stood by his remarks, adding in a statement:

“It saddens me to see bright young Iowa students being misled about our state’s financial situation. Their view of Iowa’s budget is inaccurate and it is my hope that our Regents institutions are educating them on the facts rather than political propaganda.”

I guess Hamerlinck missed the news this week about state revenues coming in strong. It’s incredible that Republicans continue to portray Iowa’s fiscal condition as dire.

Anyway, Senate Democrats spread news of the “go back home” mini-speech through blogs, Facebook, YouTube and e-mail. After the jump I’ve posted a fundraising e-mail blast featuring Hamerlinck’s comments, which I received on June 9. Hamerlinck is considered a rising GOP star, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him run for Congress someday in Iowa’s second district, if he holds his Senate seat. The new Iowa map put Hamerlinck in Senate district 46 (Muscatine and Scott counties), which has a slight Democratic voter registration advantage.

Yesterday I checked out the websites of the College and Young Democrats of Iowa and the Iowa Federation of College Republicans. The front page of the Democratic site features some GOP legislative proposals (cut taxes and spending for higher education and preschool), news from the presidential race and other odds and ends. The front page of the Republican site is full of videos and blog posts about the infamous “F*** OFF” e-mail that a University of Iowa professor sent University of Iowa student Natalie Ginty in April. (Bleeding Heartland discussed that overblown scandal here.) Ginty, who chairs the Iowa college Republican organization, appeared on many national media shows at that time to discuss alleged liberal intolerance on campus.

A group of students from the University of Iowa attended a Board of Regents meeting on June 8 to advocate for phasing out coal combustion at the three state universities. As part of a nationwide Sierra Club campaign, the students delivered signed letters from Iowans and information about the adverse impact of coal.

Rock the Vote released a new analysis this week of how state voting systems serve young Americans. Iowa placed second with a score well above the national average. You can download the full scorecard here (pdf). Iowa gained points in several categories (same-day voter registration, absentee voting, overseas and military voting) thanks to the leadership of former Secretary of State Michael Mauro. We would have lost two points if current Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s voter ID proposal had been enacted.

This is an open thread. Comments on all topics are welcome.

The Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate has rejected only two of Governor Terry Branstad’s nominees this year. One of them, former Department of Human Rights Director Isaiah McGee, started a new job Friday as education program consultant for achievement gaps and student equity at the Iowa Department of Education. Controversy surrounding McGee’s instructions to Human Rights staff and members of certain state commissions hurt the nominee with Senate Democrats. He fell a few votes short of confirmation. McGee stayed in his position at Human Rights until today; state law allows rejected nominees to keep serving for 60 days after the failed confirmation vote. State Department of Education Director Jason Glass “sought out” and offered McGee his new job as a program consultant, Branstad told journalists today. Glass commented,

“I am excited Isaiah will be joining us, because he has numerous talents and knowledge that will benefit the people of Iowa,” Glass said. “He is the exact right person for this job, as we need to continually serve the needs of all students in Iowa. Isaiah is passionate about education and will offer thoughtful solutions to the challenges we face in our educational system, and work to see those solutions through.”

Branstad hasn’t named a permanent director for the Department of Human Rights. Today he appointed Danielle Plogmann as interim director. She handled communications for the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2010 election cycle and early this year, until McGee hired her in March to be his executive assistant. Speaking to reporters today, Branstad twice described Plogmann as “loyal”:

“She has worked there, in the department, and I wanted to have somebody that I thought was loyal and somebody that I thought would work well with everybody.” […]

Branstad is interviewing candidates to take over as the director of the Department of Human Rights and he does not anticipate that Plogmann will be more than a temporary agency chief.

“I think this will be fairly short term,” Branstad said. “But I think she is somebody that I think is loyal and competant and can do the job in the short term and we will have a permanent director named in the near future.”

I’m not clear on what Plogmann’s loyalty (to the governor? to McGee’s vision? to Republican values?) has to do with managing the Department of Human Rights. I hope Branstad appoints a permanent director with a bit more relevant experience.

In related news, this week the governor named Michael Mullins to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Mullins is a registered Republican and has served as a District Court judge since 2002. He replaces Edward Mansfield, whom Branstad appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in February. Mullins was also on the short list of Iowa Supreme Court candidates the State Judicial Nominating Commission sent to the governor.

Incidentally, one of Branstad’s appointees to the State Judicial Nominating Commission was the other person Iowa Senate Democrats declined to confirm. Branstad’s replacement pick for that position was Jim Kersten, whom the Senate unanimously confirmed last month. A Fort Dodge native, Kertsen served as a Republican member of the Iowa House and Iowa Senate and also as an assistant to Branstad during his earlier tenure as governor. Kersten currently works as Associate Vice President of Development and Government Relations at Iowa Central Community College in Fort Dodge. He recently was one of seven heavy-hitting Iowa Republicans who flew to New Jersey to encourage Governor Chris Christie to run for president.

Political junkies may not have Newt Gingrich to kick around much longer. His whole presidential campaign staff quit yesterday, frustrated by the candidate’s lack of a work ethic.

Iowa Republicans will have fewer chances to kick Mitt Romney around this summer. The former Massachusetts governor won’t compete in the Iowa GOP’s straw poll this August, his campaign confirmed yesterday.

After the jump I have more links on those stories and other Republican presidential candidate news. I’ve got nothing on the Iowa GOP Lincoln dinner fundraiser that was supposed to be held tonight, though, because the state party canceled that event after Donald Trump backed out.

On a mostly party-line vote, the Iowa House passed the country’s most restrictive late-term abortion ban yesterday. The move put House Republicans on record opposing abortions after 20 weeks gestation, but in effect ends any chance that Omaha-based Dr. Leroy Carhart will face legal obstacles to opening a new abortion clinic in Iowa.

Details on yesterday’s House vote and the amended Senate File 534 are after the jump.  

Resisting a full-court press from bank industry lobbyists, Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin voted yesterday against delaying new regulations of fees banks can charge for debit card retail transactions. Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted last year, the Federal Reserve Board has until July 21 “to ensure fees banks charge merchants for debit card purchases are ‘reasonable and proportional.’” Those fees currently average 44 cents per transaction, totaling approximately $1.3 billion per month nationwide. A proposed Fed rule would cap the fees at 12 cents per transaction.

Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee have been trying to water down the regulation:

Tester and Corker had originally proposed a 24-month delay, then shortened it to 15 months and on Tuesday filed an amendment to reduce it to 12 months in a bid to pick up support.

The Tester-Corker measure would require bank regulators to study the impact of the Durbin regulation on consumers and community banks and credit unions for six months. It requires regulators to issue a rule implementing new swipe fee rates six months later but gives them power to include a wider range of costs which could let banks charge more than the Fed is currently proposing.

The number two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, sponsored the Dodd-Frank amendment on debit card swipe fees. Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Durbin said “leading up to this vote has been one of the most heated debates and exchanges that many of us in the Senate have seen in our time.” The Hill’s Alexander Bolton called it ” the biggest K Street battle of 2011.”

Tester and Corker fell six votes short of the 60 needed to approve their amendment to the financial reform law. In an unusual split, 19 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted to delay the debit card fee rules. Grassley and Harkin were among the 12 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent who voted against the amendment (roll call).

Both of Iowa’s U.S. senators both voted for Durbin’s amendment on debit card fees last May (roll call). Kudos to them for resisting the pressure to delay this reasonable regulation. Bolton noted that nine Senate Democrats who supported the original debit card rule also voted for the Tester-Corker amendment.

For what it’s worth, credit cards still offer consumers more protection than debit cards for certain retail transactions.

President Barack Obama got a little bounce following Osama bin Laden’s killing, and the weak Republican field of challengers has helped give the president an advantage in recent swing-state polls. Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey found Obama leading all the named Republican candidates by at least 9 points, for instance.

However, Obama’s position looks much more tenuous if the 2012 election is about “the economy, stupid.” According to the latest nationwide Washington Post/ABC News poll, disapproval for how Obama has managed the economy is at record-high levels, and the incumbent trails former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney among registered voters.

The “great recession” was not Obama’s fault, but no one can credibly claim his administration did the best it could to boost the job market and housing sector. By next November, the U.S. may be in a double-dip recession. Complicating matters for Obama, he has played into the eventual GOP nominee’s strongest arguments against his record on the economy. Follow me after the jump for details on the new national poll and the latest bad economic news.

UPDATE: Rich Olive withdrew from this race in October 2011.

Democratic State Representative Lisa Heddens, the ranking member of the Iowa House Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, announced today that she will seek re-election in the new Iowa House district 46. The district covers most of northern Ames in Story County, and Heddens has represented most of its residents for five terms. As of April 2011, the district contained 6,336 registered Democrats, 5,055 registered Republicans and 7,040 no-party voters. Heddens will need to move before the 2012 election, because Iowa’s new map put her home in House district 48, which has a slight Republican registration advantage. To my knowledge, no one else has announced plans to run in the new House district 46. In 2010, Heddens had a Libertarian opponent as well as a Republican challenger. The Libertarian Party has nominated candidates in several college-town districts in recent years.

Heddens’ impending move leaves the new House district 48 without an incumbent, but the House Democrats didn’t keep anyone guessing. Former State Senator Rich Olive announced his candidacy there today. District 48 covers Gilbert and rural areas in northwest Story County, Madrid and several townships in eastern Boone County, much of eastern Webster County and all of Hamilton County. As of April 2011, House district 48 contained 5,991 registered Democrats, 6,445 registered Republicans and 7,300 no-party voters.

A lot of the territory in House district 48 was in the old Senate district 5, which Olive represented for one term. He squeaked by in the 2006 Democratic wave election with a 55-vote margin in that district, left open when Republican Stewart Iverson retired from the Senate. Iowa Democrats considered him a favorite to win re-election in 2010 despite the GOP voter registration advantage in his district. Senate Republicans did not appear to be targeting him for much of the year. Conservative interest groups like the Iowa Farm Bureau and the Iowa Association for Business and Industry endorsed Olive in 2010. Now that Republicans control the Iowa House, I doubt those groups will support Olive’s comeback effort. I’m not aware of any announced Republican candidate in district 48.

Olive is the second state senator defeated in 2010 to seek a seat in the Iowa House. Last month Bill Heckroth announced plans to run in the new House district 63, covering territory he represented for four years in the Senate. Iverson returned to the capitol via the Iowa House, defeating Democratic State Representative McKinley Bailey in 2010. He may jump back to the upper chamber next year via the new Senate district 4.

After the jump I’ve posted maps of House district 46 and 48, along with today’s campaign announcements from Heddens and Olive. Any thoughts about the 2012 state legislative races are welcome in this thread.  

Among Iowa’s Congressional delegation, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) continues to be the only consistent voice against President Barack Obama’s military intervention in Libya. Since shortly after the U.S. joined NATO air strikes against Libyan targets, Braley has demanded a full cost accounting of our country’s third major military conflict, as well as details on an exit strategy. When the U.S. House considered two Libya resolutions on June 3, all five Iowan representatives voted for a toothless option criticizing the administration’s actions. However, only Braley voted for a stronger resolution that would have required the U.S. to withdraw from NATO operations in Libya within 15 days.

After the votes, Braley criticized the White House for giving “nothing but vague explanations” about our Libya intervention. Meanwhile, Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and Democrats Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) made no public statement on Friday’s House votes, in keeping with their reluctance to comment on Libya during the past two months. In a June 3 press release, Representative Steve King called on Obama to give Americans more “answers” about the intervention. King’s votes and public statements about Libya don’t make clear where he stands on this conflict, though, or on the president’s power to conduct war without Congressional consent.

Details on the Libya resolutions are after the jump, along with some analysis of recent comments from Braley and King.

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz gave Jon Huntsman a “lesson in Iowa politics” Monday, via a press release declaring the former Utah governor “not ready for the big dance.” Schultz ridiculed Huntsman’s excuse for skipping the Iowa caucuses before rifling off a few conservative talking points about Huntsman’s record. National and local media picked up Schultz’s comments.

Schultz’s opinion of Huntsman wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy, but I question the wisdom of using the official Secretary of State’s website to push a political statement written in “smackdown” tone. More thoughts on who is and isn’t “ready for the big dance” are below.

UPDATE: On June 9 the Iowa Democratic Party filed an ethics complaint against Schultz; details are at the end of this post.

Iowa’s five U.S. House representatives split on party lines when the House approved a 2012 budget for the Homeland Security department on June 2. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted with most of their caucus for the bill, which significantly reduces Homeland Security appropriations from current levels. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against the bill, as did all but 17 House Democrats.

Follow me after the jump for more about how the Iowans voted on notable Homeland Security budget amendments. I also discuss various amendments King tried to add to this bill.

A grand jury indicted former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on June 3 on six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and false statements. Read the federal government’s case against Johnny Reid Edwards here (pdf). The charges revolve around more than $900,000 used to support Edwards’ mistress and a campaign staffer who claimed paternity of Edwards’ child. Prosecutors say that money, provided by the late Fred Baron and the heiress Bunny Mellon, should have been considered campaign contributions, in which case they were way over the legal limit for a presidential campaign.

Edwards looks ready to fight the charges in court. He told journalists in a brief statement that he “did wrong” but “did not break the law” and “never ever thought that I was breaking the law.” Federal election law is unusual in that violations are only considered criminal if the offending politician knew he or she was committing a crime. So prosecutors will have to prove that the gifts in question should be considered campaign contributions, that Baron and Mellon would not have made those gifts if Edwards had not been a candidate, and that Edwards knew he was breaking the law by submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission. Edwards will contend that he had a longstanding friendship with Baron (who is deceased) and Mellon, and that they would have helped him conceal his extramarital affair from his family in any case.

So far legal analysts aren’t impressed by the prosecution’s case: see comments from Richard Pildes, Rick Hasen and Jeralyn Merritt. A 2002 FEC opinion involving a $25,000 loan to pay a divorce lawyer representing a member of Congress may support the Edwards defense. Looks like Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 was right to say Edwards should wait to see the indictment rather than cut a deal with prosecutors.

The Washington Post editorial board (never fans of Edwards) criticized the “novel application of the law” underlying this prosecution, adding, “It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.” Considering that no one has been prosecuted for systemic foreclosure fraud, making torture official U.S. policy or various other abuses, one does wonder why the Department of Justice has gone down this path. My theory is that the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is looking for a popular case to boost a future political career. The DOJ doesn’t mind the media circus and may even welcome the distraction from more pressing national issues.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend? Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age will remember Lawrence Eagleburger and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who both passed away this week.

UPDATE: J. Andrew Curliss and Joseph Neff report more details about the plea bargaining negotiations preceding the Edwards indictments. Merritt thinks Edwards was right to turn down the government’s offers and predicts that there will be further negotiations before court proceedings begin.

With less than a month remaining until the start of the 2012 fiscal year, Iowa House Republican leaders have stepped up efforts this week to draft the two-year budget Governor Terry Branstad is demanding. Republicans have drafted an omnibus budget bill combining all the usual appropriations bills, plus a few other things on their legislative wish list. The omnibus bill includes two small gestures toward a compromise with Democrats who control the Iowa Senate. However, Senate Democrats don’t sound ready to accept this package as the final work on state spending for the next two years.

Details and early reaction to this week’s budget news are after the jump.  

Public Policy Polling’s new Iowa survey indicates a wide-open race among Republican presidential candidates with Mike Huckabee out of the running. PPP surveyed 481 Iowa Republicans from May 27 through May 30. Given a choice between Representative Michele Bachmann, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Representative Ron Paul, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 21 percent of respondents expressed a preference for Romney as the GOP presidential nominee. Cain and Palin tied for second with 15 percent, followed by Gingrich (12 percent), Bachmann (11 percent), Pawlenty (10 percent), Paul and “someone else/undecided” (8 percent), and Huntsman (0 percent).

Asked to choose a candidate if Palin did not run for president, respondents favored Romney (26 percent), Cain (16 percent), Gingrich (15 percent), Bachmann (14 percent), Paul (11 percent), Pawlenty (10 percent) and Huntsman (1 percent).

I don’t know why PPP didn’t include former Senator Rick Santorum on these lists, since Santorum has hired staff and made several Iowa visits during the past year. The full polling memo (pdf) includes favorability numbers for Santorum and a bunch of other Republicans who have been mentioned as possible presidential candidates.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in a poll taken seven or eight months before the Iowa caucuses, especially a survey over Memorial Day weekend, when many potential respondents would not be at home. Still, Cain has to be thrilled to be making inroads with Iowa Republicans. This poll will make it difficult for Romney to avoid participating in the Iowa GOP’s August straw poll fundraiser. The results must be disappointing for Pawlenty and Gingrich, who have spent time and energy in Iowa recently and have high-profile Republican endorsers here. Tom Jensen of PPP saw a silver lining for Pawlenty, though:

Romney’s leading in Iowa based on his strength with centrist and center right Republican voters. With moderates he’s at 34% to 16% for Palin, 13% for Paul, and 11% for Gingrich. With ‘somewhat conservative’ voters he’s at 24% to 15% for Pawlenty, 13% for Palin, and 12% for Gingrich and Cain. His strength with those two groups outweighs his continuing weakness with the furthest right group of voters in the state, which constitute the largest segment of the Republican electorate at 41%. With those ‘very conservative’ folks Romney can muster only a fourth place finish at 13%. Cain and Palin tie for the lead with that group of voters at 19% followed by Bachmann at 15%. […]

Pawlenty doesn’t poll the strongest head to head among Romney among ‘very conservative’ voters- he leads by 17 compared to a 21 point lead for Palin and a 24 point advantage for Bachmann with that group. But with center right voters- those calling themselves ‘somewhat conservative’- Romney leads Pawlenty by just a single point while he has a 19 point advantage over Palin and a 22 point lead over Bachmann with that group. What that says to me is that many Republicans are looking for someone more conservative than Romney but someone who isn’t bound to get creamed in the general election the way Palin, Bachmann, and Cain probably would. That’s very good news for Pawlenty if it ever plays itself out in real life.

Jensen also noted that non-candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan posted better favorability numbers in this poll than any of the declared Republican presidential candidates.

Share any thoughts about the GOP presidential race in this thread.

UPDATE: PPP replied to my question about not including Santorum in this survey. A maximum of eight candidates can be tested in this automated poll; adding Santorum would have meant removing Huntsman, about whom “there’s much more national interest.” Since Huntsman hasn’t been in Iowa while Santorum has spent time here and hired staff, I would have liked to see whether Santorum is gaining ground like Cain.

The U.S. House of Representatives failed to approve a presidential request to increase the debt ceiling yesterday. Members rejected a motion to suspend the rules and proceed with that bill by a 318 to 97 vote (roll call). Every House Republican present voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). Nearly half the Democratic caucus also voted against yesterday’s motion, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer advised Democratic colleagues to reject what he described as a “political charade” aimed at producing fodder for campaign attack ads. Bruce Braley (IA-01) missed yesterday’s vote to attend a family funeral but released a statement saying he would have opposed raising the debt ceiling. I’ve posted his comments after the jump. Since last November’s election, Braley has consistently been talking like a deficit hawk.

The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling in mid-May. If Congress does not raise the limit by August 2, the federal government will not be able to pay all of its bills. Republican leaders are pushing for major domestic spending cuts as a condition for raising the borrowing limit. Naturally, austerity won’t apply to the military budget, and that’s fine with Boswell, Loebsack, Latham and King.

I believe Democrats are making a mistake by accepting Republican demands for strings attached to the debt ceiling hike. President Bill Clinton refused to make such negotiations part of a deal on raising the borrowing limit in 1995, saying he would not let Congressional Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

King asserted yesterday that repealing the federal health insurance reform law would “save the taxpayers $2.6 trillion” and would be a good start toward finding spending cuts to offset the president’s debt request. I’ve posted his full statement after the jump. At this writing I have not seen official comments on the debt ceiling from Loebsack, Boswell or Latham. If those become available, I will update this post.

UPDATE: Latham’s statements on the debt ceiling are now after the jump.

Catching up on news from last week, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) was the only Iowan in the U.S. House to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, which passed May 26 on a 322 to 96 vote (roll call). While Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Steve King (R, IA-05) all supported the bill’s final passage, their votes broke down differently on a number of important amendments the House considered Thursday.

Follow me after the jump for details on those votes and statements some of Iowa’s representatives released regarding this bill.

Seven Iowa businessmen are flying to New Jersey today to dine with the man they hope will improve a comically bad Republican presidential field. I understand the idea behind recruiting Governor Chris Christie, but I don’t get why the power-brokers are calling so much attention their efforts.

More thoughts on the courting of Christie are after the jump, along with a bonus tip on what not to say if you want outsiders to take the Iowa caucuses seriously.

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

Several energy-related stories caught my eye this week. New analysis suggests the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is worse than initially thought, because “containment chambers of damaged reactors […] were likely breached.” In terms of radioactive material released into the ocean, Fukushima could become “even larger than Chernobyl.”

Earlier this month, the Japan Times reported, “High radiation readings taken in the No. 1 reactor building the night of March 11 suggest it was the quake rather than the loss of cooling that critically damaged the Fukushima No. 1 power plant […].”

As part of its response to the nuclear crisis, the Japanese government may require “all new buildings and houses to come fitted with solar panels by 2030.” Solar power has the potential to reduce demand for electricity during peak hours.

In local news, Ben Foster, a former campaign staffer for presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, pleaded guilty this week to public intoxiation during an embarrassing incident this spring. Authorities dropped a trespassing charge against Foster, who tried to get into the wrong house in the middle of the night. He’s lucky he didn’t get charged with driving drunk en route to this misadventure.

Sarah Palin will be the focus of a two-hour-long film, which its director will premiere in Iowa “late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.” No word yet on which Iowa theater will show the movie. Meanwhile, a former top aide to Palin during her time as governor of Alaska just published a “scathing tell-all” book.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s twitter technique caught the eye of Steven Nelson at the Daily Caller. I disagree with Grassley twitter detractors like Sam Biddle. It’s refreshing to see a politician speak in his own voice, without running it by communications staff. This is still my all-time favorite Grassley tweet.

Prospects for a passenger rail connection between Chicago and Iowa City do not look good as state budget negotiations continue between Governor Terry Branstad and legislative leaders. Last October, the federal government awarded $230 million toward a rail line from Chicago to Iowa City. The Chicago to Quad Cities portion of the project will go ahead, because the state of Illinois has approved matching funds. However, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen says House Republicans are still dead-set against allocating state funds in fiscal year 2012 to match the federal grant. Iowa would need to appropriate $10 million, plus approximately $3 million in annual operating subsidies, although local officials in communities that would benefit from the rail link have offered to cover some of the operating funding.

Earlier this month, Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) urged state legislators not to pass up the chance “to stimulate Iowa’s economy and create jobs by funding the high-speed passenger rail line.” Braley serves on the House Transportation Committee and has long advocated passenger rail between Chicago and Dubuque as well as to the Quad Cities and Iowa City. With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, the federal government is unlikely to make further large investments in passenger rail as part of a transportation bill or an economic stimulus package.

Central Iowa elected officials and business leaders also support the planned line to Iowa City, with the hope that rail would eventually be extended through Des Moines to Council Bluffs/Omaha. This week Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy, who represents part of Des Moines, urged Governor Terry Branstad to get involved and advocate for the passenger rail funds. McCoy argued that the project has economic benefits, is cost-effective and would reduce oil consumption. I’ve posted an excerpt from his editorial after the jump.

Branstad has been saying for months that he opposes state subsidies for rail. (Never mind that roads receive far larger subsidies than train travel.) I had hoped that Chamber of Commerce and Greater Des Moines Partnership types would be able to change Branstad’s mind on this issue. However, the governor told EasternIowaGovernment.com last week that he was “letting them sort that [rail funding] out between the House and Senate.”

Hours before three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions were set to expire, Congress approved a bill extending the provisions until June 1, 2015. At the Open Congress blog, Donny Shaw summarized the legal points:

They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without being allows to inform the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track terrorists acting independently of any foreign power or organization.

Congress approved a three-month extension of those provisions in February. The bill that just passed was a compromise between House Republican and Senate Democratic leaders who disagreed on how far to extend the powers. A House bill would have extended the “lone wolf” authority permanently and the others for six and a half years. A Senate bill would have extended all three powers until the end of 2013.

Many senators have complained that the PATRIOT Act provisions in question undermine civil liberties, but few had the stomach to filibuster the bill when the Senate considered a motion to proceed on May 23. Iowans Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among the 74 senators voting for considering the PATRIOT Act extension (roll call). Just eight senators voted to filibuster this bill; another 18 senators did not vote on the motion to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a legislative maneuver to block various amendments seeking to reform the PATRIOT Act from receiving votes on the floor yesterday. The Senate voted on just two amendments, both submitted by Republican Rand Paul. Motions to table those amendments passed with overwhelming majorities, 91 to 4 and 85 to 10. Both Harkin and Grassley voted to table Paul’s amendments.

Harkin and Grassley disagreed on final passage of the bill, however, as they did when the last extension came to a vote in February. Grassley was among 72 senators voting for the four-year PATRIOT Act extension; Harkin was among the 23 voting against it (roll call).

The bill then went to the House for consideration. After some debate it passed on Thursday evening by a vote of 250 to 153. The roll call shows that Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) all voted yes, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no, with the majority of their caucus. Quite a few House members crossed party lines on this bill; 31 Republicans voted no, while 54 Democrats voted yes. Iowa’s House delegation split the same way in February when the three-month PATRIOT Act extension passed.

After the House voted to concur with the Senate amendment to the bill, the PATRIOT Act extension went to President Barack Obama’s desk. Because the president is in France, White House officials said Obama signed the bill before midnight using some kind of “autopen” machine. That’s the first I ever heard of that technology.

After the jump I’ve posted a memo from Grassley on the PATRIOT Act extension, which the Republican senator’s office sent to the media on Thursday evening. At this writing I have not seen press releases on this vote from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham or King.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post on the cynicism of Democrats who have been using the Republican talking points of yesteryear to browbeat colleagues into rubber-stamping the PATRIOT Act extension.

UPDATE: Added King’s press release on this vote after the jump.

James Hill of ABC News reported this week,

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned. […]

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Some unnamed sources suggest Edwards’ legal team is working on a plea agreement so that he would not have to stand trial. But a high-powered attorney for Edwards, former White House counsel Greg Craig, sounds ready to fight, asserting that “not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved,” there is “no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution,” and the “Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.” Ben Smith reports for Politico that Craig

is said to be pushing for a trial and arguing that prosecutors will not be able to win in the vague and untested terrain of campaign-finance law – as he made clear in a defiant statement to reporters Wednesday. Edwards’s longtime friend and lawyer Wade Smith, a fellow veteran of the North Carolina courts, is said to be more inclined to settle. And Edwards himself appears, associates say, to be sorely tempted to take his chances in an arena that made his career and his fortune.

“John needs money. He needs to work, so he can’t give up his law license,” said a source who knows Edwards but who requested anonymity. “He thinks, ‘I get in that courtroom, I get in front of a North Carolina jury…’ “

For the sake of Edwards’ three children under age 18, I would advise him to settle in order to avoid jail time. But I don’t know the legal terrain and have no idea what his chances would be to escape conviction. If conducting an affair during a presidential campaign is any guide, Edwards isn’t risk-averse. Then again, Craig may just be posturing to negotiate a better plea deal for his client.

As far as I know, the money allegedly used to cover up Edwards’ affair came from large donations to his One America Committee (a PAC)–not his 2008 presidential campaign funds. I don’t know whether that makes any difference as a point of law.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt discusses the case here:

If the U.S. Attorney is demanding a plea to a felony count, I suspect John Edwards will fight. I hope he does. Regardless of your opinion of John Edwards and his personal life, he’s the sole parent now to two young children. Mistreating a donation as a gift (particularly if you relied on the advice of your legal counsel in doing so), when there is a paucity of court decisions defining the difference between them, seems over the top.

If Edwards is offering to plead to a misdemeanor and probation, the Government should grab his proffered ounce of flesh and forego insisting on a pound. The only reason to demand a felony is to justify the cost of the Government’s absurdly lengthy and intrusive investigation.

Jan Crawford reports for CBS News on the arguments underpinning a potential Edwards defense:

Edwards’ legal team argues that the prosecution’s theory is unprecedented and wrong. They say there is only one case involving gifts to federal candidates that’s even remotely comparable — and it not only is distinguishable, but also was merely an advisory opinion by the FEC that never has been cited as authority for a criminal prosecution.

In that case, the FEC said a proposed gift to a federal candidate was illegal because the donor wouldn’t have made it if the candidate weren’t running for office. Edwards, on the other hand, had long-standing personal relationships with donors Fred Baron and Bunny Mellon that continued after he withdrew from the race. In fact, Edwards had lunch with Mellon on Thursday.