Republican attorney general candidate Brenna Findley has been one of the hardest-working challengers in Iowa this year. For months, she’s been campaigning across the state, and she’s raised lots of money, helped by her close ties to Representative Steve King and an enthusiastic booster in Terry Branstad. Findley launched her introductory television commercial this week and has had a radio ad running since mid-September. In contrast, 28-year Democratic incumbent Tom Miller has been mostly invisible on the campaign trail.

Findley’s introductory tv and radio ads are after the jump, along with some other recent news from the attorney general’s race.  

Direct mail attacking Democratic incumbents has reached voters in many competitive Iowa House and Senate districts. From reports I’ve heard, most mailers employ cookie-cutter messaging about unsustainable spending, or supposedly “forced” property tax increases, which have been debunked again and again.

One GOP talking point had me stumped: in press conferences, message-testing phone calls and campaign mailers, Republicans have accused Democrats of spending thousands of dollars on “heated sidewalks.”

Follow me after the jump for background on the origin of this canard. You’ll be “shocked” to learn that Iowa House and Senate Democrats did not vote to spend money on heating sidewalks, nor are such sidewalks planned or installed anywhere in Iowa.  

Matt Schultz, the not-very-informed Republican who wants to be Iowa’s chief elections officer, has been on a tear lately. Last week he launched the Stop Mauro website, which publishes new allegations almost daily about Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s supposedly nefarious doings. A common thread in Schultz’s rhetoric, dating from the Republican primary campaign, is that Mauro engages in Chicago-style politics, which have no place in Iowa.

On October 1 Schultz slammed Mauro for filming public-service announcements regarding new voting technology for the visually impaired. Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson covered Schultz’s joint press conference with Republican state treasurer candidate Dave Jamison. Mauro’s office responded as well. There is an obvious public interest in educating Iowans about new voting equipment during election season. Mauro appears in the commercial, but so do a Republican county auditor and the president of the Iowa Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind. More details on the production, funding and script of the ad are here.

Schultz’s attention-getting press conference seems to have backfired. On Monday two more Republican county auditors joined the crowd supporting Mauro for re-election. One of the new endorsers was Marilyn Jo Drake of Pottawattamie County. Schultz is well-known there, having served on the Council Bluffs City Council since 2005. But Drake said in a statement, “I’m proud to support Michael Mauro as he seeks a second term as Secretary of State. Michael Mauro has been a strong and effective partner with county auditors across Iowa. I encourage all Iowans to vote for him this fall.”

Elected county officials rarely back statewide candidates from the other party. Schultz doesn’t have the experience to do this job, and his unfounded claims don’t inspire confidence from the county auditors who work with the Secretary of State’s office.

Jamison’s complaints about State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald are no more convincing. Jamison claims “taxpayers” are funding television, radio and newspaper ads featuring Fitzgerald. The ads publicize the College Savings Iowa 529 plan and the “Great Iowa Treasure Hunt,” which encourages Iowans to retrieve unclaimed property from the state. Deputy State Treasurer Karen Austin told me that unclaimed property finances the publicity for the treasure hunt, which state law requires twice a year. Those ads typically appear in May and September. The state’s general fund budget doesn’t pay for the college savings fund commercials either; those are funded by the 529 plan’s assets. Austin told Kay Henderson that many states including Iowa normally promote college savings in September. Jamison accused Fitzgerald of using public funds to promote himself, but

Austin says, “The way that we look at it, is having a state office that does this adds credibility to the program, and that is one thing that gives people comfort in understanding and knowing who is promoting this program, and why should I invest in this program and is that state tax benefit legitimate. So we have always felt that it is very important to make sure that people understand what this program is.”

Similarly, Schultz claimed the commercials on voting technology could have been produced without featuring Mauro. Guess what? Incumbents have some natural advantages in politics–like when Republican office-holders use taxpayer money to fund visits to all 99 Iowa counties every year.

Share any thoughts about the secretary of state or state treasurer races in this thread.

P.S. One point on the Stop Mauro site deserves additional comment. Schultz says Mauro “snubs the law,” citing a 2008 Polk County district court ruling. The court determined that Mauro violated Iowa’s official English law by providing and accepting voter registration forms printed in other languages. Legal scholars Evan Seite and Michael Zuckerman have analyzed this case in detail, and the issues at hand are more complicated than Schultz implies. In fact, the judge who wrote the King v Mauro opinion “suggested that the federal Voting Rights Act […] might require Iowa’s use of non-English voter registration forms” under an exception allowing for “language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” If plaintiffs ever challenge the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act in federal court, Mauro’s actions may be vindicated. Zuckerman argues that English-only laws are constitutionally vulnerable as applied to voting.  

At about 6:20 pm today I received a robocall informing me about one of the “most important” elections this year, which is “buried at the bottom of your ballot.” The recorded female voice told me that voting no on the three Iowa Supreme Court judges would send a “clear message,” since the judges had ignored the “overwhelming” will of the people, blah blah blah. Toward the end the caller again urged me to vote no on retention, adding a populist closing line: “This time, you get to be the judge.”

I was taking notes as fast as I could, ready to write down who paid for the call and the phone number of the sponsor. However, the call ended without giving any of that information. Using *69, I learned that the source of my last incoming call was 515-418-9339, but when I pressed 1 to contact that number, I heard, “The number called cannot be reached.” Subsequent attempts to dial 515-418-9339 didn’t produce a ring, busy signal or any answering machine message.

In federal elections, groups making automated calls must “identify themselves at the beginning of the call and provide a call-back number.” Although most robocalls I’ve received do provide that information, Iowa statute does not require it, to my knowledge.

I wonder why those campaigning against the Iowa Supreme Court judges are reluctant to publicize who is bankrolling their campaign activities. Shouldn’t the sponsor be “loud and proud” about what they’re doing? Perhaps they don’t want to call attention to the vast amounts of out-of-state money trying to influence the retention vote. The Washington, DC-based National Organization for Marriage and the Mississippi-based American Family Association Action are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars urging Iowans to vote no on retention.

Please share any relevant thoughts, and post a comment or contact me off-line if you’ve received the same robocall.

Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally approved the new “antidegradation” rules adopted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to protect high quality Iowa waters. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and two industry groups immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the state Environmental Protection Commission’s vote to adopt the antidegradation rules. The EPC and the DNR are named as defendants.

A Farm Bureau press release charged that two members of the EPC should not have been able to vote on the rule. Carrie LaSeur, president of the non-profit organization Plains Justice, “was already living and voting in Montana when she cast her vote on the Iowa antidegradation rule,” the lawsuit contends. “That is a clear violation of the residency laws governing the EPC, which require members to be registered Iowa voters.” The lawsuit further claims EPC member Susan Heathcote had a conflict of interest because she works for the Iowa Environmental Council, a non-profit that advocated adoption of antidegradation standards. Environmental attorney James Pray posted a link to the petition on his blog and summarized a third angle to the lawsuit:

The third count alleges that Iowa’s antidegradation rules are more restrictive than the federal law. Iowa Code section 455B.105(3) requires the EPC to state in the Notice of Intended Action or preamble that a rule will be more restrictive than what is required under federal law. The Iowa antidegradation rule invents a Tier 2 1/2 designation in between the federal Tier 2 and Tier 3 designation. No mention was made in the preamble or Notice of Intended Action that this change was in the offing.

The Iowa Farm Bureau has 154,000 members. The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, and the Iowa Water Environment Association are industry groups with 100 and 600 members, respectively. All three groups have some members who will be required to obtain or renew NPDES permits that comply with antidegredation requirements.

The EPC has nine commissioners and needs at least five yes votes to adopt a rule. The antidegradation rule passed on December 15, 2009 by a vote of six to two with one abstention (pdf). In other words, it would have passed without LaSeur voting, or without Heathcote, but not without both of them.

I am not an attorney and don’t know Iowa case law relating to residency and LaSeur’s eligilibity to serve on a state commission.

Heathcote declined my request for comment today, not having had a chance to read the legal petition. She had served on the EPC for more than two years before the antidegradation rule passed, but this is the first lawsuit challenging her ability to vote on commission matters related to environmental regulation.

The EPA noted yesterday that the federal Clean Water Act requires Iowa “to develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and to identify procedures for implementing the policy.” I thought Iowa’s many years of non-compliance were over once opponents failed to stop the water quality rules in the Iowa legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee in February. The Farm Bureau’s lawsuit means at least a delay and perhaps the demise of rules designed to “maintain and protect high quality waters and existing water quality in other waters from unnecessary pollution.”  

Another independent analysis concludes Iowa is well-managed and compares favorably to most other states. 24/7 Wall St, a website geared toward investors, released its survey of “The Best and Worst Run States in America on Monday. Iowa ranked third, behind Wyoming and North Dakota. This survey took many indicators into account:

It is based on evaluation principles used in the award-winning Best Run States In America ratings published by the Financial World Magazine during the 1990s. These studies were used by state governments to evaluate the efficiency of their own operations. The new 24/7 Wall St. study is meant to help businesses and individuals examine state operation with an unbiased eye.

The word involved in comparing states is challenging. This is due the volume of the data and the many ways it can be interpreted. A comparison is made even more difficult because state governments have advantages and disadvantages that may be decades old. These include the presence of natural resources, the the decisions by large companies to locate or leave and the extent to which populations are rural or urban. […]

Ultimately, however, states can control their own destinies. Well-run states have a great deal in common with well-run corporations. Books are kept balanced. Investment is prudent. Debt is sustainable. Innovation is prized. Workers are well-chosen and well-trained. Executives are picked based on merit and not “politics.”

24/7 Wall Street identified surveys with complete data sets for each state. Using this data, our formula ranked each state giving weight to metrics that are most important to prudent governance. In addition to traditional fiscal information, including GDP per capita, debt per capita, and and credit rating, our analysis also showed the impact of state policies on its residents.

24/7 Wall St posted more information about its methodology near the bottom of this page. Governor Chet Culver and the Democratic-controlled state legislature can’t take credit for all of the factors that helped Iowa gain such a high ranking. However, this survey demonstrates the emptiness of Republican campaign rhetoric about “out of control” state spending and borrowing. Iowa has maintained a top credit rating and the sixth-lowest debt per capita, and our unemployment rate is relatively low by national standards.

Since Democrats gained Iowa House and Senate majorities four years ago, they have passed bills to expand access to health care for children and adults (see here and here for two examples). Those laws helped reduce Iowa’s already low percentage of residents without health insurance. Only Massachusetts and Hawaii now score better than Iowa on this metric, according to a chart near the middle of this page in the 24/7 Wall St report.

Yet again, outside analysts who don’t have a dog in the outcome of Iowa elections have concluded that the state is doing well, thanks to capable and prudent management. Don’t expect Republicans to notice, though.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is headlining a sold-out fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad in Des Moines this evening. Branstad has praised Christie for “cleaning up the state’s budget and again putting his state on the right track.” One Republican speaker after another tonight will bash Iowa Governor Chet Culver, ignoring the fact that our state ended the last fiscal year with a sizable surplus and has been described as one of the states “least like California” in terms of budget problems.

Bleeding Heartland would like to welcome Christie to Iowa by comparing his record on state borrowing with Culver’s I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program, a frequent Republican punching bag.

The latest Des Moines Register poll by Selzer and Co finds three Iowa Supreme Court justices are in danger of not being retained this November. The Register’s Monday edition contains details from that portion of the poll, which surveyed 550 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent.

Among all likely voters, just 31 percent plan to vote to retain all three Supreme Court justices, 12 percent will vote to retain some of them, 29 percent will vote against retaining all of them, 16 percent will probably not fill out that part of the ballot, and 12 percent were unsure. Among respondents who planned to vote on the retentions, 44 percent said they would vote to retain all the Supreme Court judges, 16 percent said they would vote to retain some, and 40 percent will vote to remove all three.

Click here for the Register’s graph showing the breakdown among certain demographic groups (party affiliation, income, union household and born again Christian). Grant Schulte summarized the findings:

Retention supporters and opponents split largely on party lines. Voters most likely to retain all the justices were Democrats, women, younger Iowans, union households, and those with high incomes and college degrees.

Senior citizens, Republicans, men, tea party supporters, born-again Christians, low-income voters and those with only a high school education were more likely to vote “no” to all the justices, the poll found.

I had feared worse numbers, since the Register’s poll was in the field September 19-22, not long after television commercials making the case against retention started running statewide.

Schulte’s article notes,

The retention election could hinge on which side mobilizes the most down-ticket voters. A Register analysis of voting records in the past two non-presidential elections shows that only 60 percent of Iowa voters answered the retention questions for justices and appeals-court judges.

The judges don’t plan to campaign for themselves. Groups backing retention won’t be able to match the advertising budgets of groups on the religious right. I doubt they will reach as many voters as the pastors who plan to preach directly against retaining the judges either.

Ousting three Supreme Court wouldn’t change Iowa’s judicial system right away, but it would give momentum to those who want to replace merit-based selection with a more politicized process. Please remind your friends to fill out the whole ballot and vote yes on the judges up for retention.

The National Rifle Association released its complete list of Iowa endorsements late last week. Though the announcement didn’t receive as much media coverage as the group’s backing for Democratic Governor Chet Culver, announced a few days earlier, I found some of the choices interesting. Like the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the NRA has a policy of endorsing incumbents who have supported the group’s agenda, regardless of party. (In contrast, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation endorsed almost exclusively Republicans this year, passing over many Democrats in the state legislature who have supported that group’s agenda.)

The NRA Iowa endorsements and candidate ratings candidates are here. Some highlights are after the jump.

Exactly one month remains before the November election. Many Iowans have already received phone calls or direct mail promoting or attacking candidates for the state legislature, and those voter contacts will accelerate in the final weeks. Based on what I’ve heard about Republican message-testing phone calls in various Iowa House and Senate districts, Democratic candidates can expect lots of lies or distortions: the so-called “budget deficit” that doesn’t exist, alleged attempts to force workers to join unions, the claim that I-JOBS hasn’t created any jobs, and alleged government spending on “heated sidewalks” that never happened.

I’ll have more on Iowa Republicans’ lies and exaggerations in the coming weeks. I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers to help get the word out by posting diaries here or e-mailing me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) about any deceptive mailings and robocalls you receive.

Meanwhile, it’s imperative that Democratic candidates and allied groups stick to the facts when criticizing Republican opponents. This week Iowa conservative bloggers were enraged over mailers attacking Kent Sorenson, GOP challenger against State Senator Staci Appel in Senate district 37. The seat is one of Republicans’ top targets, and activists in both parties expect a close election. Shane Vander Hart posted two of the mail pieces on the Des Moines Register website. At least one was paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party; I can’t tell from Vander Hart’s photo who paid for the other piece.

The mailers highlight Sorenson’s vote against Senate File 2357, which Governor Chet Culver signed into law this year after it passed with bipartisan support. The bill prohibits “a person who is the subject of a no-contact order or a protective order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing, transferring, or selling firearms and ammunition or offensive weapons.” Sorenson and most other Republicans felt making someone give up their guns because of a no-contact order was taking away a constitutional right “without due process.” It disgusts me when self-styled law and order Republicans care more about domestic abusers’ gun rights than about preventing violent crimes. A large percentage of women who are murdered are killed by male partners or ex-partners who have previously abused or threatened them. Women have to demonstrate a pattern of abuse or harassment in order to get a no-contact order. Criticizing Sorenson for that vote is fair game.

The mailers also mention House File 596, which Sorenson co-sponsored in 2009. This bill would have relaxed concealed weapons permit requirements. Thankfully, it never made it out of subcommittee. The anti-Sorenson mailers claim HF 596 “would allow concealed weapons in bars.” That’s partly true; from my reading of the bill, it looks like only people in certain occupations would be able to carry concealed weapons in bars (a bad idea). The mailers also claim HF 596 “would allow kindergarten teachers to carry concealed weapons in classrooms.” I can’t find anything in the text of the bill to support that claim. Sorenson may be crazy, but even he isn’t that crazy.

Stretching the truth to score political points is not only wrong, but also likely to backfire. Sorenson does hold extreme views on guns. His own supporters cheer his efforts to repeal all handgun permit requirements and eviscerate Iowa’s permitting system in other ways. Unfortunately, sloppy work by whoever produced those direct-mail pieces will allow Sorenson to portray himself as the victim of a smear campaign.

Democrats shouldn’t let Republican attacks go unanswered, but they need to stick to the reality of Republicans’ voting records, public statements and the wacky ideas in the Iowa GOP platform.

Speaking of sloppiness, why does anyone listen to Krusty Konservative? This week he stated definitively that the National Rifle Association had endorsed Appel over Sorenson. The NRA announced a few days later that it was backing Sorenson. Click here to view the rest of the NRA’s Iowa endorsements.

This is an open thread, so feel free to share anything that’s on your mind this weekend.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Ternus confirmed on September 30 that she and her colleagues will not wage a campaign urging Iowans to retain them in office.

Ternus said she and justices David Baker and Michael Streit don’t want to set an example for judges by campaigning and raising money.

“How would you feel, as a litigant, to appear in court and know that the opposing party’s attorney gave money to the judge’s re-election campaign and your attorney didn’t? Is that the kind of system Iowans want? I just hope they think about it. This is way more important than whether any one judge is retained or not,” she said.

I’ve talked to some people who are frustrated the Supreme Court justices aren’t more actively defending themselves and their records. I admire them for honoring the principle that judges should not engage in election-style campaigns, even when their own jobs are on the line.

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is heading a campaign to oust the judges. His Iowa for Freedom organization has massive financial backing from the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been spent on a statewide television commercial and radio advertising urging Iowans to vote no on retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker.

The Justice, Not Politics coalition formed recently to defend the judges and our current judicial system, but they won’t be able to match the conservative groups’ spending against the judges. The Iowa State Bar Association has created Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts, but as a pending 501(c) organization, that group cannot explicitly urge Iowans to vote yes on retaining the Supreme Court justices.

Please remind your friends and relatives to turn the ballot over and vote yes on retaining the judges listed. All of them “are well qualified to remain as judges” according to the Iowa State Bar Association’s survey of Iowa attorneys. Survey results were released on October 1. All 74 judges up for retention this year received “high marks” for “professionalism and demeanor” on the bench. The Des Moines Register listed the bar association’s survey results for the three Supreme Court justices and all Polk County judges on the ballot.

All judges had more than 70 percent support from the attorneys, but Ternus’ retention rating (72 percent) was lower than the ratings for Streit and Baker. In general, women judges receive lower retention ratings from the legal community than men on the bench. Ternus also made the news in the summer of 2009 when seven 19-year-olds, including her son, were arrested for drinking at a party outside her home. Her husband was charged with interference with official acts as Polk County sheriff’s deputies broke up that party, but the charge was later amended to harassment of a public official.

UPDATE: Saturday’s Des Moines Register offered another possible explanation for Ternus’ slightly lower rating:

But the vote also follows a tight budget year for the courts. Ternus, who issues administrative orders as part of her duties, required clerk-of-court offices to reduce their public hours, and imposed courthouse closure days as a cost-cutting measure. Some court reporters were laid off.

“The chief justice is the person who addresses issues such as dealing with court’s budget, or administrative issues in the court,” Knutson said. “Certainly, she had to be the public face on some of those hard decisions.”

Iowa Republicans have nominated some candidates who are remarkably ill-suited for the jobs they are seeking. There’s secretary of state nominee Matt Schultz, who doesn’t know how voter rolls are maintained, uses unfounded fraud allegations to get attention, and thinks a focus on job creation means the secretary of state should get involved in legislative battles over tax and labor bills.

There are incumbents like State Representatives Jason Schultz and Dwayne Alons, whose oddball ideas Bleeding Heartland has covered before.

But this story in the Carroll Daily Times-Herald suggests that Dan Dirkx, Republican candidate in Iowa House district 51, sets the gold standard for ignorance.  

At about 4:00 pm today a woman from Lawrence Research called with a survey on the upcoming elections. As always when I receive a political phone call, I didn’t hang up and took as many notes as possible on the poll. Judging from the question wordings, this was a message-testing survey commissioned by a group trying to oust the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who will be on the ballot this November.

The Lawrence Research polling firm is run by Gary Lawrence, who was active in California’s Prop 8 campaign against same-sex marriage. His firm recently conducted a poll purporting to show that Minnesotans want a governor who opposes same-sex marriage rights. The Minnesota Family Council and National Organization for Marriage publicized that poll.

I assume the American Family Association and/or the National Organization for Marriage commissioned the poll for which I was a respondent today. Those groups are lavishly funding the “Iowa for Freedom” effort to oust the judges. Television commercials urging a no vote on retention began running statewide two and a half weeks ago.

If this poll shows that Iowans are poised to vote no on retaining the Supreme Court justices, whoever commissioned it will probably announce the results. I’ll assume the numbers were good for the judges if I don’t see an Iowa for Freedom press release about the poll in the coming weeks.

After the jump I’ve posted as many details as I could about the survey questions.

Speaking of the retention elections, get a load of this brazen recruiting effort by a Sioux City church: “Pastors who join this effort are asked to commit to confront the injustice and ungodly decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court by boldly calling upon their flocks to ‘vote no on judicial retention’ for the three consecutive Sundays prior to Election Day.”  

Iowa finished fiscal year 2010 on June 30 with an ending balance of $335.6 million and $419 million in various reserve accounts, the Iowa Department of Management reported yesterday. Remarkably, the surplus is the second-largest in the last 10 years despite the weak national economic recovery of the past year.

It’s been clear since July that the ending balance would exceed the $100 million projected when the legislature adopted the 2010 budget. Revenues during the second half of the fiscal year came in higher than expected.

Republicans have been lying about Iowa’s so-called “budget deficit” all year. During the past three months, gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad has continued to accuse Governor Chet Culver of spending too much, and GOP candidates for many other offices have joined in the chorus about allegedly “out of control” spending.

Don’t expect Republicans to apologize for their demagoguery. Instead of acknowledging our state’s fiscal health, Iowa House Republicans put out a statement today fanning fears about a huge Medicaid funding shortfall in fiscal year 2012 (that’s the year that begins on July 1, 2011).

Kathie Obradovich’s take on today’s news at the Des Moines Register blog was stunning as well. Instead of pointing out that the final budget numbers disprove statements Branstad has been making all year, she chided Culver for “name-calling” against his Republican opponent. Why doesn’t she ask Branstad to show how he would balance the budget without accepting federal fiscal aid or dipping into reserve funds, while keeping his promise to reduce the size of state government by 15 percent over five years? We’ve seen no budget details from Branstad, and his plans to cut corporate taxes while having the state take on more responsibility for funding mental health and education services simply don’t add up.

More details on the final state budget numbers for fiscal year 2010 are after the jump, along with ending balances for each of the last ten fiscal years.

UPDATE: Iowa House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen still claims Culver “has a history of reckless and irresponsible budgeting” and accuses him of forcing a $500 million property tax increase. That Republican talking point has been debunked before. Paulsen asserts that Culver has “left a budget shortfall of over $1 billion for next year, including $600 million in Medicaid.” Again, that refers to fiscal year 2012. The Iowa legislature will take account of updated revenue and expense projects when drafting next year’s budget during the 2011 legislative session, just like legislators adjusted spending plans during this year’s session to keep the 2011 budget balanced.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey has run a low-key campaign for re-election so far this year. Democratic challenger Francis Thicke has faulted Northey for not doing enough to ensure food safety, proposed stronger regulations for Iowa egg producers and an energy policy that would increase farm incomes. I expected Northey to respond by telling voters how he has protected the food supply or helped farmers improve their bottom lines.

Instead, Northey’s opening television commercials have spread the usual Republican lies about Iowa’s “budget deficit” in order to depict Northey as a leader in keeping down his department’s exPenses.

UPDATE: Northey is also distorting Thicke’s stance on ethanol plants in Iowa. For more, scroll to the bottom of this post.

SECOND UPDATE: Another central claim from Northey’s ads turns out to be false. As Thicke points out in the comments, Northey didn’t “work with the legislature” to reduce his department’s budget.

President Barack Obama is discussing the economy this morning at a private home in Des Moines. Governor Chet Culver and several other elected Democrats are there, but the president isn’t doing any campaign rallies in Iowa like his appearance in Wisconsin yesterday.

The latest Des Moines Register statewide poll by Selzer and Co showed just 45 percent of all Iowa respondents approve of Obama’s performance, while 50 percent disapprove. Among the “likely voters” subset, Obama’s approval is 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

Last night Obama tried to fire up a group of Democratic activists about this year’s election. Maybe Democrats would be more enthusiastic about voting and volunteering if the president had delivered on more of his campaign promises and implemented better economic policies. That’s a topic for another post.

I’ll update this post later with links on today’s event on the economy. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about Obama or his impact on the Iowa elections in this thread.

LATE UPDATE: The group of people invited for Obama’s backyard visit wasn’t representative of Iowans struggling in today’s economy. He spent a lot of time criticizing Republican ideology on tax cuts, mostly with accurate facts and figures. But I just don’t find Obama’s economic message credible. He seemed afraid to face the people hurt the most by the recession, and he won’t acknowledge or correct his administration’s inadequate response to the housing crisis and continuing high unemployment. Where is the president’s plan to help the “99ers,” people who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits but still can’t find work? Why did he reappoint a Federal Reserve chairman who won’t do much to attack the unemployment problem? Heads should have rolled at Treasury for designing a foreclosure response program primarily to benefit banks rather than Americans who are underwater on their mortgages. (See David Dayen’s “Portrait of HAMP failure” series at Firedoglake.)

Obama’s backyard event succeeded at what may have been its primary aim–generating positive vibes with Iowa journalists like Kathie Obradovich. She somehow concluded the staged performance helped “Obama reconnect with Iowa” by allowing “the president to interact with people in a way he never could in a huge venue.” Oh, and we’re supposed to be impressed he got a couple of semi-critical questions during the Potemkin visit.

Iowa’s first Congressional district race was long assumed to be safely in the Democratic column. Two-term incumbent Bruce Braley won by a 25-point margin in 2008, outperforming President Barack Obama in the district. No well-known Republican stepped forward to challenge Braley in 2010, and as of July, the incumbent had more than six times as much cash on hand as Ben Lange, the little-known attorney from Independence who won the Republican primary.

Lange’s campaign has produced some web videos with a generic message: Braley increased the national debt, voted for bailouts, “Obamacare,” the “failed stimulus,” and supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 98 percent of the time.

Lange’s website and web advertising portray the national debt as a huge threat to our national security. But the former Congressional staffer to a Minnesota Republican seems to have little grasp of the federal budget. He wants to replace our current income tax structure with two tax brackets: everyone making less than $125,000 per year would pay 10 percent in income taxes, while everyone over that threshold would pay 25 percent. I would love to see the Congressional Budget Office estimate on how much that plan would add to the deficit over 10 years. I couldn’t find any details on Lange’s website about spending he would cut to pay for his tax plan while balancing the budget. He has asserted (wrongly) that “unspent bank bailout and stimulus funds, as well as a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases,” would cover the $3.7 trillion it would cost over 10 years to extend all of George W. Bush’s tax cuts and fix the alternative minimum tax. He claims (wrongly) that the health insurance reform bill didn’t address the Medicare reimbursement formula.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that Lange doesn’t seem ready for prime time. Nor can he afford much of what would raise his name recognition in the district, such as direct mail, radio and television advertising.

Lange has something most unheralded Congressional challengers don’t have, however: a 501(c)4 group willing to spend roughly a million dollars on his behalf. The American Future Fund began television advertising against Braley last month and has reserved another $800,000 in advertising time before the November election. The group has also paid for robocalls and direct mail to district voters, attacking Braley’s record. Last week the American Future Fund’s PAC formally endorsed Lange, gave his campaign $5,000, and launched a 60-second radio ad hitting Braley on the usual Republican talking points (read the ad script here).

Unsolicited advice for Lange: when you’re benefiting from a million dollars in outside spending by people who won’t say where they get their money, it’s not wise to accuse your opponent of taking too many campaign donations from outside the district.

Braley didn’t fundraise heavily during the first half of the year, probably assuming he didn’t have a serious challenger. He now faces the prospect of being outspent between Labor Day and election day. Without the American Future Fund in this race, it would probably be sufficient for Braley to run a standard incumbent campaign with positive advertising. He could tout the more popular elements of financial reform, consumer credit card protections, health insurance reform and federal fiscal aid to Iowa. Braley was a key architect of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, which stimulated hundreds of thousands of new car sales last year. He also was a leading advocate of the “plain language” bill the House has passed twice, which finally got Senate approval on September 27.

Now Braley has to balance defending his own record with responding to the American Future Fund’s attack ads. Lange can sit back and be the generic Republican on the ballot.

In recent weeks, Braley has tried to taint Lange by association with the American Future Fund, which doesn’t disclose its donors and has a sleazy ad consultant. Braley’s campaign has also accused Lange of illegally coordinating campaign activities with the 501(c)4 group. I don’t know how they could prove that, because Republican candidates around the country are using the same kind of rhetoric we’ve heard from Lange. It’s not as if the American Future Fund came up with a unique set of talking points against Braley.

I haven’t seen any internal polling on this race, so I don’t know whether Lange is in striking distance. A poll commissioned by the American Future Fund found Braley ahead of Lange by 50 percent to 39 percent, and by 47.1 percent to 42.7 percent among the most likely voters. I also don’t know the margin by which Democratic Governor Chet Culver and U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin are trailing their opponents in the first Congressional district; that would affect Braley’s prospects too.

Share any thoughts on the IA-01 race in this thread.

UPDATE: The American Future Fund’s latest television commercial against Braley is after the jump.

Monday was role reversal day in the Iowa governor’s race, with the National Rifle Association endorsing Democratic incumbent Chet Culver as a union group backed Republican challenger Terry Branstad.

The candidates’ rival job creation proposals also made news during the past week. Branstad’s plan looks like a cover for letting business interests gut almost any regulation they dislike.

More on those stories, along with Culver’s latest television commercial, are after the jump.

UPDATE: The Culver campaign announced the Teamsters Union endorsement on September 28. Details are below.

More than 30 organization and several dozen “community leaders” have formed a new coalition called Justice, Not Politics. Former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning (a Republican) and Sally Pederson (a Democrat) are co-chairing the coalition, which will counter the well-funded campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention this year. Pederson and Corning spoke to Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson on September 27:

Pederson charges that Iowa for Freedom – the group now headed by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats – is trying to “hijack” the courts and using a quarter of a million dollars in out-of-state money to do it. “There is no Iowa for Freedom organization that you can write a check to. It is a project of the American Family Association out of Tupelo, Mississippi, and they don’t have the interests of Iowans at heart. They have their own agenda,” Pederson says. “The American Family Association is really a extremely outrageous, you know, right-wing group.”

The leaders of Iowa For Freedom say they’ll continue to educate Iowans about their right to “hold the court accountable” for the gay marriage ruling and they accuse Pederson and Corning of “scare tactics.”

Corning says judges shouldn’t be subjected to “political retribution” and Corning argues the three justices up for a retention vote this fall have met the right standard by showing an ability to uphold the law “fairly and consistently.”

“There is much work to be done to fight extremists who want to insert their narrow special interests into the one branch of government that should be free from politics,” Corning says.

Click here to view a list of Justice, Not Politics supporters. Many churches and religious organizations have signed on, and lots of the “community leaders” are clergy. I am not aware of any current Republican elected official or candidate who has spoken out for retaining the justices, but in addition to Corning, two other prominent former Republican politicians have joined the effort: Ambassador and former Iowa Senate President Mary Kramer, and former State Senator Maggie Tinsman.

Iowa’s judicial system is one of the finest in the country. Iowa’s merit selection and retention process keeps politics and campaign money out of our courts, safeguarding its fairness and impartiality. To keep it that way, Iowans from all political spectrums should resist efforts by one extremist group from Mississippi who are funding an effort to politicize our courts. If politics and campaign money are allowed into the courts, justice will be for sale.

Why a Coalition?

Groups from across the state are working together to counter the effort of extremists from hijacking Iowa’s courts. Justice, Not Politics is a broad based, nonpartisan coalition of organizations and Iowans across the political spectrum —- progressive to conservative; Republicans, Independents and Democrats —- all who are committed to protecting Iowa’s courts and our system of merit selection and retention.

The Iowa State Bar Association created Iowans for Fair & Impartial Courts earlier this year, but that pending 501(c)3 group cannot engage in direct political advocacy. Iowans for Fair & Impartial Courts has raised money for a public education campaign about the benefits of Iowa’s merit selection system for judges, but it cannot explicitly urge citizens to vote yes on retaining the Supreme Court justices.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad has tried to remain neutral on this issue, stating that “people should vote their conscience” on the judges. But as three law school deans wrote in this guest editorial for the Des Moines Register, the retention elections were not intended to be referenda on specific court rulings:

The merit selection process includes periodic votes on judges. Every eight years each member of the Supreme Court appears on the ballot with the simple question: Should this individual be retained for another term in office? The retention vote was designed for a very limited purpose, to provide a mechanism to remove a judge who was unfit for office, for example, because of corruption such as bribery, other unlawful conduct, or misconduct.

Those seeking to remove the three Supreme Court justices fail to recognize the substantial harm they will do to Iowa’s judicial system if they succeed. It would do serious harm to the rule of law in Iowa and the fair and impartial administration of justice if judges are removed from office through campaigns of political opponents because of the results reached in particular cases. It would be an open invitation to well-funded interests to band together and retaliate against judges. Inevitably, decisions would appear to be influenced by politics and ideology, not by the law and evidence in a case.

The three justices under attack have a record of integrity, competency and distinguished public service, and a “yes” vote on their retention is merited by the facts.

Senator Chuck Grassley has a solid lead over Democrat Roxanne Conlin in the latest Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register. Among 550 likely voters Selzer and Co surveyed between September 19 and 22, 61 percent said they would vote for Grassley and just 30 percent for Conlin if the election were held today.  

More details from the poll, along with Grassley’s latest television commercials and other news from the race, can be found after the jump.

UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom for videos and transcripts of two new ads Grassley’s campaign released on September 27.

SEPTEMBER 28 UPDATE: The latest Iowa Senate poll by Republican pollster Rasmussen sees Grassley well ahead of Conlin, but by a 55 percent to 37 percent margin.