Rich Dana, who posted this diary on energy policy here not long ago, had a great editorial on the front page of the opinion section of the Sunday Des Moines Register: Big utilities take wind out of locals’ future.

I hesitate to post any excerpt, because you really should go read the whole thing. But here is a particularly important passage:

Minnesota recently passed a “C-BED” law (Community-Based Economic Development) which levels the playing field for locally owned renewable-energy projects by establishing a tariff based on the utility industry’s own discount rates. For residential and small-business customers, Minnesota and a number of states across the nation offer rebate programs for individuals willing to invest in small-scale solar-power systems or home- and farm-scale wind turbines.

Meanwhile, at the Iowa Statehouse, the ever-present utility lobbyists exert an iron grip on legislators with a campaign of disinformation, making claims that they are working to protect ratepayers from increased energy bills, and that they can do a better job in a market environment free of government mandates.

As a believer in the power of the free market, I find this claim humorous – the day that I have a choice of which power company to buy from is the day we can have that discussion. Until then, utility companies remain state-sanctioned monopolies, with only as much concern for their customers as the government requires.

Despite the fact that several forward-looking Iowa rural electric co-ops and municipal utilities have proven that supporting their members and local residents who invest in renewable energy is good for local business, ratepayers and the environment, the REC lobby continues to be one of the most vehement opponents of local renewable-energy ownership. It argues that if it is required to buy locally produced renewable electricity, it would be too costly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

MidAmerican Energy, one of the most powerful and influential forces at the Statehouse, has led the effort to shut out small business and local ownership through the company’s close ties to leadership.

Like I said, go read the whole thing. Our Democratic-controlled legislature should be able to do better on energy policy.

From time to time I’m posting about the IA-03 primary at Daily Kos, MyDD and Open Left. If you’d like to join the conversation there, please leave a comment on the threads below my latest installment:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

Thanks to record turnout at the Iowa Caucuses in January the Iowa Democratic Party has 60,000 new registrants. The Republicans gained 7,600 new registrants, while 49,000 people are no longer registered as no party.

This makes the current registration totals in Iowa as of March 1st: Democrats – 701,285; Republicans – 615,576; and 761,201 No Party.

This Democratic Wave should bode well for Democrats in the 2008 elections, as they look to expand majorities in the Iowa Senate and Iowa House, and compete for Congressional seats.

Democrat Bill Foster won today’s special election to serve out the remainder of this term representing Illinois’ 14th Congressional district:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert resigned from the seat, forcing the special election.

The NRCC spent more than $1 million, about 20 percent of its cash on hand, to defend this red district, and still lost the seat.

Keep in mind that more than two dozen Republicans in the U.S. House are retiring this year, forcing the GOP to defend a lot of open seats. The DCCC’s fundraising is strong, putting Democrats in a good position to expand their majority in the House.

Anyone still worried that Republicans will be able to mount an effective challenge for Iowa’s third district in case Ed Fallon defeats Leonard Boswell in the primary?

What Big Tent Democrat (an Obama supporter) said:

So we are celebrating “democracy” in Wyoming today. The “will of the people?” Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.

Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.

The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.

So, one participant in the Wyoming caucuses today has as much say over our nomination as 19 Californians who voted in the primary (or 8.6 Iowans who came to the caucuses in January).

But Obama supporters, you keep chanting about how the lead in pledged delegates is the only factor superdelegates should keep in mind when it’s time to vote for our nominee.

I have been critical of the Iowa caucus system, even though some elements of the system favored my candidate. I don’t like the electoral college, even though it is possible that someday a Democrat may win 270 electoral votes despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

Big Tent Democrat is one of very few Obama supporters who acknowledges that certain elements of our nominating system are undemocratic, even though those elements favor his candidate.

UPDATE: In the comments below that thread on TalkLeft, user waldenpond wrote:

I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama’s 100 red.  Clinton 815 to Obama’s 83 for blue.  I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels.  I do it because I find it interesting, but I don’t think any of it means anything.  Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del.  Obama 8553 votes per del.

Interesting. So Clinton has won more than 700 more popular votes per delegate than Obama has. If he does very poorly in PA and in any FL re-vote, he could well end up losing the popular vote despite retaining his lead in pledged delegates.

with these pathetic comments picked up by the AP.

As Talking Points Memo notes, the full quotation from the Spencer Daily Reporter is even worse.

Here’s hoping King will get tired of serving in the House minority and leave Congress before too long.

The Des Moines Register published a fairly long list of bills that made it through the funnel and therefore may still be passed this session. Click the link to read short summaries of these bills.

The Register also listed some of the high-profile bills that did not make it through the funnel, such as a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and a proposal to ban the use of cell phones while driving.

About a month ago, Ed Fallon’s campaign issued a press release criticizing Leonard Boswell for sending out a mass mailer on environmental issues. Key excerpt:

“Boswell is trying to paint himself as an environmentalist,” Fallon said, “but his voting record says otherwise. And for him to mail campaign literature on the public’s tab is flat out wrong.”

The mailing focuses on Boswell’s vote in December for the Energy Independence and Security Act that raises fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020. However, in 2001 when House Democrats tried to raise these same CAFE standards to 27.5 mpg by 2007, Boswell joined Republicans to defeat the proposal (08/01/01). “Boswell’s reversal of position, Fallon said, “came only after he learned I might be running against him.” He said the same was true of Boswell’s support for the Safe Climate Act, which was introduced in March 2007. “It took until December – nine months – for Boswell to decide to support the legislation,” Fallon said.

It’s probably good politics for Fallon to complain about Boswell sending out campaign-style fliers at taxpayer expense, but let’s face it–the franking privilege is one of the advantages of incumbency. It’s not realistic to expect Boswell not to use this advantage during the primary campaign.

I never saw that Boswell mailer on the environment–presumably it got tossed in the recycling bin. However, this week I got a piece from Boswell about economic issues. It has the look and feel of a campaign mailing, but the small print says, “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

After the jump I have transcribed this week’s mailer for the benefit of readers who are following this race closely but don’t live in the third Congressional district.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Leonard Boswell convened a town-hall meeting by telephone on Tuesday, but I was not able to participate.

The Des Moines Register reported that Boswell took questions for about an hour during the call. The only specific question the Register mentioned related to Boswell’s vote for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which most Democrats in Congress opposed:

“I am a survivor of the farm crisis, and saw folks that bankrupted when they really had the ability to pay back,” said Boswell, who owns a cattle farm in southern Iowa. “It seems to me like when we sign our name on the line and promise to pay, that we have a responsibility if we have the ability to pay.”

At the same time, more help and counseling are needed to assist consumers from falling too deeply into debt, Boswell said. He said he worked very hard to not fall into bankruptcy when he faced financial problems with his own farm operation.

The bankruptcy bill vote is one of many Ed Fallon has criticized in his primary challenge of Boswell.

I hope to be able to listen in on one of Boswell’s telephone town-hall meetings, assuming he has more.

Fallon held live town-hall meetings yesterday in Tama, Amana and Des Moines. If anyone attended one, please post a comment or a diary to let us know how it went. Fallon has more town-hall meetings scheduled for next Wednesday, and I’ve put the details after the jump.

While we’re on the subject, I want to address something I’ve heard from a handful of Democrats I know about this primary. A few people have told me that they won’t defend Boswell’s voting record, and they would like to support a primary challenger, just not Ed Fallon. Maybe they don’t like that Fallon supported Ralph Nader in 2000, or maybe they have some other issue with something Fallon did years ago in the state legislature.

Let’s be clear: the choice for Iowa’s third district is Boswell or Fallon, not Boswell or some fantasy liberal who has never made a mistake.

Democrats willing to run against well-funded, entrenched incumbents do not grow on trees. If you want to see a more progressive Democrat representing Iowa’s third district, you should be supporting Fallon now. If he loses the primary, you can be sure that no one will ever challenge Boswell in a primary again.

Whenever Boswell retires, which could be many years from now, there will be a crowded Democratic primary for this seat, and there is no guarantee a progressive will win.

If you like Boswell and on balance think he deserves to be re-elected, that’s understandable. But if you would rather support a different kind of Democrat for this seat, get behind Fallon now. Don’t hide behind the excuse that you’d rather support some other primary challenger some other year.

MyDD user lipris linked to this post from the Albany Project blog, which includes a list of the 24 Democratic-held U.S. House seats being targeted this year by the NRCC.

None of the three House seats held by Iowa Democrats are on the list. Neither Bruce Braley (IA-01) nor Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has a Republican challenger yet. Braley is officially launching his re-election campaign today. Boswell is facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

I think that Dave Loebsack (IA-02) has a Republican challenger, but I can’t find the link to an article about that. I would be shocked if he has any trouble holding his seat. He will have the army of Obama volunteers helping him if the challenge turns out to be serious.

It looks like a very good year for Iowa Democrats. The caucuses in January prompted nearly 60,000 people to register as Democrats, while only about 7,600 Iowans became Republicans to participate in the GOP caucuses. According to Secretary of State Mike Mauro,

as of March 1, there were 701,285 registered Democrats in Iowa. There were 615,576 Iowans registered as Republicans and 761,201 not affiliated with a party.

Meanwhile, at MyDD Jonathan Singer discusses the GOP’s voter registration problem on the national level.

As the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton moves on, the question of electability will become more and more important. 

This moring at Century of the Common Iowan, I took a look at the 2008 electoral map.  Using these numbers, Obama would be at 259 electoral votes by adding up the states that are strong democratic, likely democratic, and lean democratic. 

Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes): Lean Democratic ↑
Maine (4 electoral votes*): Lean Democratic ↑
Wisconsin (10 electoral votes): Lean Democratic ↓
Michigan (17 electoral votes): Lean Democratic↑
Minnesota (10 electoral votes): Lean Democratic
Oregon (7 electoral votes): LeanDemocratic
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes): Likely Democratic
Washington (11 electoral votes): Likely Democratic

Obama would then need to win 21 more electoral votes to get to 270 and win the election.  Here are the states that are the article considered as toss ups…

Colorado (9 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Virginia (13 electoral votes): Toss-Up ↓
Missouri (11 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Ohio (20 electoral votes): Toss-Up
New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Iowa (7 electoral votes): Toss-Up

Obama losing Ohio this week has brought some to question if Obama will be able to win Ohio.

By looking at recent poll numbers in these states, Obama would be able to win the nomination without winning Ohio and Florida.

Iowa (7 electoral votes)

Des Moines Register poll on 2/24
Obama 53%
McCain 36%

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 51%
McCain 41%

Rasmussen on 2/21
Obama 44%
McCain 41%

New Mexico (5 electoral votes)

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 55%
McCain 40%

Colorado (9 electoral votes)

Rassmussen on 2/13
Obama 46%
McCain 39%

Virginia (13 electoral votes)

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 51%
McCain 45%

Rasmussen on 2/21
Obama 44%
McCain 49%

Missouri (11 electoral votes)

Survey USA on 2/19
Obama 49%
McCain 43%

Rassmussen on 2/13
Obama 40%
McCain 42%

These poll numbers suggest that Obama would win Iowa (7), Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).  This would give Obama exactly 270 electoral votes. 

The Iowa Future Fund is running ads that are lying about Chet Culver’s record.  The group has apparently incorporated itself as a 501c4, so it can refuse to disclose its donors.   Basically, they are claiming that their intent is not to influence elections, despite the fact that all they have ever done is try to smear the big lug.

The organization’s spokesperson is David Kochel, who claims he is the only person who will speak for the Future Fund ever.   Give him a call at 515-865-6077 to let him know how you feel about his organization, or email him at david@jdkmpa.com to demand that the group disclose its donors.  Let us know what kind of response you get.

We don’t watch much tv, so I wasn’t aware of the ads that have apparently been running against Governor Culver since last summer. The Des Moines Register reports that the Iowa Future Fund has not disclosed its donors. A former GOP state director, David Kochel, is the only person who has acknowledged involvement with the fund’s ad campaign. The Register notes:

Iowa Future Fund has been running ads sporadically in Iowa since August, all criticizing Culver. The latest round accuses him of vastly increasing spending and criticizes him for signing a bill offering Microsoft tax incentives to locate a center in Iowa.

The group is registered with the Internal Revenue Service under chapter 501(c)(4), which allows it to advocate for or against legislation, but does not require it to disclose its contributors.

The Iowa Democratic Party recently asked the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board to determine whether the Iowa Future Fund’s ads are violating state law. Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan said at a press conference that the ad’s claims are not true, but the Register notes that “Iowa’s campaign law does not require ads be true.”

Brennan also said the fund broke the law by not filing disclosure reports, but it doesn’t sound like Democrats are going to be able to prove that these commercials trigger the disclosure requirements:

Charlie Smithson, Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board executive director, the ad must expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate in order for the board to have jurisdiction.

If anyone out there knows more about who is funding these ads, please drop me a line or post a comment.

Just got this e-mail from Environment Iowa. There’s a big vote coming up Thursday in the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee:

Did you know that we here in Iowa spend less state money per capita on the environment than almost any other state in the nation?

We think that’s outrageous, and a bi-partisan committee of legislators, working closely with environmental groups as well as the Farm Bureau, has recommended that Iowa spend an additional $150 million a year to improve water and soil quality, enhance parks and trails, and protect wildlife habitat.

Tomorrow afternoon, Thursday March 6, the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee will vote on a bill that is the first step toward dedicating those funds. Join us in urging these committees to vote ‘yes’ on our environment.

To send an e-mail to the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee, click here:

http://environmentiowa.org/act…

Action is critical now — this legislation must pass both houses in the next two months, or else the process will be delayed for two years.

This bill would put a question on the ballot asking Iowans create a fund specifically for Iowa’s water and soil quality, parks and wildlife. These funds would be protected for environmental purposes only and future legislatures won’t be able to raid them for other purposes as they have in the past.

The new resources would be invested in:

 * Protecting water quality from both urban and agricultural sources of pollution;

 * Keeping the best soil on earth where it belongs – on the earth,not in our streams and lakes where it smothers fish and other aquatic life;

 * Restoring parks, biking and hiking trails at the state, county and local level;

 * Protecting habitat for a diverse array of species such as trout, bobwhite, pheasant, and bobcat.  

So please take a moment to tell members of the Senate committee how important it is to invest in our water, land and wildlife. Follow this link to take action today:

http://environmentiowa.org/act…

For what it’s worth, I would call the members of this committee rather than e-mailing them. There’s no guarantee that anyone on their staff will open e-mail in time for this vote.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama could win the Democratic nomination based on his lead in pledged delegates, even though more voters in primaries and caucuses supported Hillary Clinton.

Texas is the latest state where Obama may win more delegates despite losing the popular vote (Nevada was another example.)

Also, Obama has gotten lots of extra delegates by running up the score in caucus states with comparatively low turnout compared to populous states such as Ohio, where Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

Gordon Fischer writes at his blog, Iowa True Blue:

Matthews grills McAuliffe:  The Founder of the Democratic Party [Thomas Jefferson] said that a victory by a single vote is as sacred as a unanimous vote.  Do you agree?  McAuliffe couldn’t and wouldn’t answer.   Why?  Because he supports the Clintons and their entire strategy is based, indeed must be based, on ignoring the elected, pledged delegates.

My question to Obama supporters is this: do you see any problem with nominating the candidate who won fewer votes in all of the caucuses and primaries?

Gordon ignores the possibility that the pledged delegate leader could be the candidate who has won fewer votes from real, live citizens.

By the way, if we were only counting Democratic voters, Hillary would be even further ahead of Obama. A strong case can be made that Democrats should select our nominee, rather than Republicans and Democrats-for-a-day.

Former state Representative George Eichhorn, who served three terms in the Iowa House before losing his seat in the 2006 election, announced that he will seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate this year.

Up to now, Tom Harkin’s only declared opponent was Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje, who had less than $60 in campaign cash at the end of 2007. Harkin started the year with close to $3.5 million cash on hand.

As I wrote here yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin has introduced The Complete Streets Act of 2008, which would

work to promote the design of streets that are safe for all of those using the street- including motorists, bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities.  Between 1993 and 2003, nearly 52,000 pedestrians and more than 7,400 bicyclists were killed in road accidents; studies show that the designing streets with pedestrians in mind may reduce pedestrian risk by as much as 28 percent.

More information about this issue can be found at the Complete the Streets website.

In related news, I read in the Smart Growth America newsletter that four pilot programs aimed at promoting bicycling and walking for short trips were found to significantly reduce vehicle-miles traveled, and therefore carbon-dioxide emissions, in the communities:

“This report just goes to show that, for many travelers, the automobile is not always the mode of choice, and that safe and convenient options will lead them to use their bicycles or their feet to get around,” says Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman. Adds Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, “This program, and its legacy, will change the face of transportation in communities across the country. Its contribution, and that of walking and bicycling, to the nation’s fight against global warming will be notable.”

Reducing vehicle-miles traveled is an essential part of any comprehensive strategy to combat global warming. Otherwise gains from more efficient vehicles or better fuel sources could be wiped out as Americans continue to drive more miles per capita.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 would cover a projected shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by taking money away from public transportation projects. Is there any policy this president doesn’t get wrong? We already devote way too little funding to public transit compared to road-building.

We are going to have a real problem getting to 270 electoral votes this November. Obama is still heavily favored to win the nomination, unless some bombshell scandal emerges during the next couple of months.

However, the rout in Ohio yesterday suggests that McCain would be heavily favored in that state against Obama. There are key elements of the Democratic base that are not sold on Obama.

Remind me again how he gets to 270 electoral votes without Florida (where he has virtually no chance against McCain) or Ohio. Kerry states plus Iowa and Missouri would not be enough, would it? I think he would also need Colorado, New Mexico or Virginia.

More worrying, Obama’s weakness in Ohio suggests to me that he may struggle to carry Pennsylvania in the general as well.

Within the last hour I got a robocall from Leonard Boswell informing me about some kind of telephone town-hall meeting tonight.

Was anyone able to listen in on this call? I am curious.

I am pretty sure that the robocall directed me to Boswell’s Congressional website (boswell.house.gov) for more information–not to the campaign website (www.boswellforcongress.com).

Then, about 20 minutes ago I got my first phone call from a field organizer for Boswell. I was frank with him, saying I’ve supported Leonard in the past and like him, but he’s voted against my interests too many times. I’m going for Fallon in the primary and will support the winner of the primary in the general. The field organizer was polite and thanked me for being direct.

Boswell is taking this primary challenge seriously, and that’s good for residents of the third district. Obviously, I hope Fallon wins the primary, but even if he doesn’t, I think the challenge will nudge Boswell toward better serving his constituents.

UPDATE: A franked mailer from Boswell arrived in the mail on Wednesday afternoon. It certainly looks like a campaign piece–I will transcribe it later. The small print makes clear that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.

Desperate for an election-year campaign issue, House Minority Leader Chris Rants tried and failed today to pass a resolution that would have made a gay marriage ban eligible for debate this session. No committee in the Democratic-controlled chamber is willing to pass the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

By a 50-46 party-line vote, the House rejected Rants’ resolution, which would have allowed the chamber to debate the ban even after the bill failed to get through the “funnel.”

Iowa Independent has more on the story here.

I am pleasantly surprised that none of the House Democrats defected on this procedural vote. They must all be feeling confident about their re-election prospects. Maybe that’s because nine House Republicans are retiring this year, while only two Democratic-held House seats will be open.

Regarding Rants’ efforts to keep the gay marriage debate alive, I think Des Moines Register reader Jay Radcliffe said it best in this letter to the editor from late January:

Thank goodness for Christopher Rants. As I drive down the highway smelling the stench from the hog lots, watching the filthy water roll under the bridge, worrying if my kids will fall behind as their schools fall apart, wondering if my elderly mother is receiving quality care and planning how to survive if I lose my job in this recession, Rants is leading the charge against gay marriage. Talk about a profile in courage.

Keep up the great work, Christopher!