Where there’s a will, there’s a way!! I know how to get the money for Iowa’s clean elections bill. And is it ever SWEET!

Look here: Plug the Wal-Mart Loophole

It’s real tax money that now gets slyly siphoned out of the state and turned into tax-free profits for Wal-Mart and other devious corporations who operate in many states. They shift their money around, turning Iowa profits into “expenses” that they “owe” to their other pockets in other states where the money is not taxed. Eventually it becomes untaxed profits.

The fix is a reform known as “combined reporting” and it could have brought us $99 million in the year 2002. That’s FAR MORE than the ten million that we supposedly can’t find for VOICE.

We know where it is and we know how to get it. What are we waiting for, more campaign contributions to Patrick Murphy from Wal-Mart?

cross posted at http://iowavoters.or…

LATE UPDATE: I posted more about my background here and here. A better e-mail for contacting me: desmoinesdem AT bleedingheartland.com

Desmoinesdem is the pseudonym of a woman who has been interested in politics since she took on the role of John Anderson for a 5th-grade class debate. She wonders whether there are any other Bleeding Heartland registered users old enough to remember John Anderson.

She first participated in an Iowa caucus as a Paul Simon supporter in 1988. She wonders whether there are any other Bleeding Heartland registered users old enough to remember Paul Simon.

Now she is a mother of two in the Des Moines suburbs. She was a precinct captain for Kerry in 2003/2004 and for Edwards in 2007-2008. Aside from electoral politics, her interests include a wide range of environmental issues and attachment parenting.

The best way to contact her is to comment in one of her diaries, but she can also be reached at desmoinesdem at yahoo.com.

This started out as a quick reply to Mark Laggin’s post on Technology and 21st Century Caucus Ops.  It basically turned into a post in its own right.  Cross posted to (as opposed to from) my blog.

The paradigm shift we are starting to see is in the decline of one-to-many “broadcast” communications methods as an effective voter contact and voter persuasion tool.  Mark talked about phones.  Phones are especially vulnerable for two reasons.

One, the proliferation of cell phones, Internet telephony and the lack of centralized directories for both begins to limit traditional phone campaign methods to the a diminishingly useful or relevant legacy PoTS (plain old telephone service) universe. 

The second factor is linked to the first.  The inability to reach additional voters outside the PoTS universe leads to more intense competition for those voters using the tried-and-true methods campaign staff know.  This leads to what we saw in 2006 which is the almost complete alienation of voters to any phone contact and utterly diminishing returns on phone contacts

I know, I know.  That’s a pretty grand title for a blog post.  Yet, it’s a topic that really gets me going from time-to-time.  I think that the impact of new technologies related to wireless technology, GPS, computers, and the internet are just beginning to be realized and we have a long way to go.

I look at this post as a forum to talk about ways technology will play in Iowa during the run to the 2008 caucus.  I think this post from the Hotline blog can serve as a jumping off point.  It’s discussing the Romney caucus operation:

A walk provides a window into the soul of the Romney campaign: efficient, high-tech, friendly, driven. The rows of tables are ready for phone bankers. Where are the phones? There aren’t any. Collins decided to buy dozens of cell phones. They’re cheaper, don’t require a deposit, and can be easily transported to, say, Ottumwa for multi-purposing. They can also be tracked. They don’t break as easily. And Collins can avoid haggling with the local phone company.

Many people have taken the 2004 Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary results as proof positive that the candidate winning here will develop enough momentum to carry him or her through the entire nominating process.  While that obviously happened with John Kerry’s dramatic turnaround in New Hampshire following his win here, it is by no means a rule.

Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire have almost always differed in their choices.  Not counting sitting Presidents or Vice Presidents, Jimmy Carter was the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire agreed on anyone for either Democrats or Republicans (and technically Iowa voted for Undeclared over Carter).  If anyone other than Kerry had won the Iowa caucus in 2004, that streak would almost certainly have remained intact.

No, what 2004 taught us was that soft support in New Hampshire never really goes away.  Kerry was the default frontrunner there for half of 2003, with Dean eclipsing him around the middle of the year.  Even after moving all of his resources into Iowa, Kerry was still polling in second place.

After winning in Iowa, those 25%-30% of people who supported him earlier in the year suddenly remembered that they still supported him.  That, combined with an important but not overwhelming general boost from winning the caucus, led to his win there.

If John Edwards had won the Iowa Caucus, Howard Dean would have probably picked up New Hampshire, and the 2004 nomination fight would have been a lot more interesting (I’m just going to say for fun that Edwards probably would have ended up winning – he’s just a better all around candidate than Dean).  Instead we saw that Kerry rebounded, and took the combined momentum of back to back wins into a dominating performance throughout the rest of the season.

What does this tell us about 2008?  Right now Hillary Clinton is the John Kerry of New Hampshire, with high natural support that is persisting even with other campaigns active in the state.  If she exceeds expectations in Iowa, she should recapture those voters even if they stray in the meantime.  She is also much less likely than Dean to dramatically underperform in Iowa, which means that her New Hampshire supporters won’t be as shaken as Dean’s no doubt were.

2008 is going to be a lot different than 2004 though, with all three first tier candidates regularly polling in the double digits in early primary states.  Both Edwards and Obama have the potential to string together back to back wins, though it seems unlikely right now that a surprise Iowa showing by any of the second tier candidates would lead to dramatic movement in New Hampshire.  It’s still early, but with the campaigns moving as fast as they are this kind of analysis is appropriate now when it wouldn’t have been in February 2003.  Al Gore would shake things up, but other than that, or someone (probably Obama) making a dramatic gaffe, it looks like our field is pretty well set.

Does anyone else think that it is a big mistake for Obama to not release his numbers, given that everyone else has?  He is more or less being cut out of the discussion right now, and unless he has actually beat Hillary he’s not going to get a huge boost when he does (and even then he would get the same boost now and drown out her positive press.)

If Iowa is any indication, the bumbling Obama campaign likely has no idea how much money they raised this quarter, and won’t know for sure until the deadline or even after.  The checks are spread all over someone’s desk – on top of their list of important phone messages, no doubt.

I am also surprised that the media has accepted that $26 million figure from Clinton uncritically, when a healthy chunk could be useful only in the general election.  Mitt Romney may end up being the highest fundraiser of all the candidates on either side.  He should also see a more dramatic second quarter drop than anyone else.

Winners:

John Edwards – He stays in the first tier, when bad fundraising could have knocked him out of the competition.

Bill Richardson – Raises the most by far of the second tier candidates.  This guy is doing everything right, and has a good chance if one of the top candidates stumbles.

Losers:

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – Come on guys, you have some sort of national networks, and you’re getting killed by the governor of a tiny state?  You might as well drop out now, because neither of you are going anywhere.

Obama – For not having his shit together.  Not getting talked about is as good as not raising money.

Hillary (maybe) – We’ll know better on the 15th, but her inability to put serious distance between her opponents and herself in fundraising means that the whole “inevitability” thing is disappearing fast.  As far as I’m concerned, general election money raised at this point is gimmickry.  It’s not like people who max out to you in the primary aren’t going to go back and donate to you in the general anyway.

I know this is really long for a typical blog post, but this is a column I wrote for Drake’s newspaper today.  I just thought it was an interesting topic you folks might enjoy:

Democratic selection might not be known until national convention

by Patrick Rynard (Columnist)

Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: Opinion

By this time next year, we ought to know who the nominees for president are. The candidates will have slugged it out in the early states, and an early winner will have gained the momentum to sweep the 20-plus states that make up this cycle’s “Super-Duper Tuesday.” Before Valentine’s Day arrives, all but one candidate will have dropped out on either side.

Or at least that’s what the conventional wisdom predicts will happen. I believe we may see a much different, much more exciting nomination. One in which the final outcome isn’t even decided for the Democrats until the national convention come August 25. Which would mean, yes, a major convention floor fight for the presidential nomination – something we haven’t seen since 1968.

I know that VOICE has nearly universal support in the blogging world and among activists, but the truth is that it is definitely not happening this cycle and unlikely to happen in the future without a serious accounting of how Iowa campaigns are run, both by Democrats and Republicans.

Exhibit 1:  Mike Gronstal’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Exhibit 2:  Mary Lundby’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Both of these show six-figure donations and expenditures for Senators not even up for election in 2006.  They don’t represent even close to all the centralized money in Iowa politics, either.

The reason you see so much party-line activity in Iowa politics is because all the money is controlled by leadership.  If you cross them too much you can expect to have a very difficult time raising money in your next election, and everyone hates to raise money.  If you are a team player though your seat will be defended and you can focus more on shaking hands and kissing babies.

If Iowa implemented VOICE, leadership’s power would disappear.  Naturally, then, it is going to be very hard to convince Gronstal or Murphy to buy into something that will work to marginalize them.  And with Republicans temperamentally opposed to any sort of campaign finance reform, there is next to no chance of getting this passed without their support.

I don’t see VOICE being passed by 2008, nor necessarily should it be.  Ed Fallon isn’t our governor.  Elections have consequences.  But we should keep pushing it this year, and we should do our best to make it a voting issue in 2008.  With the Presidential races expected to combine to over a billion dollars, we’ve got the context for it.  With caucus coverage more expansive than ever, we’ve got the microphone.  And with luck and a little work, in 2008 we’ll have the votes.

I cannot believe that this poll by the University of Iowa made news.  I cannot even believe that the University of Iowa would let it be published under their name.

According to it, the biggest winner after the announcement of Elizabeth Edward’s cancer was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest loser was Barack Obama.

If you read all the way to the bottom of the press release, you find out the sample size of the poll for likely Democratic caucus-goers (and God only knows how they determined that status).  That size?  128.  They report a margin of error of 6% on that sample, though by my calculations it should be more like 8.7%.  Even under the generous assumption that this sample was divided exactly in half for pre- and post- announcement polling, that leaves the before and after numbers with a margin of about 12%.

You know what that means?  Nothing at all can be concluded from this poll.  Nothing.  You’d think a University would be able to figure that out, but maybe they don’t teach statistics 101 to Political Science Ph.Ds.

I think the Pew Research Center for People and the Press is one of the best resources out there for finding “non-partisan” survey data and polling.  The sample sizes are large, extensive, and peer reviewed.  According to their website:

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

They have a new report detailing “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007”.  My favorite part of the survey is below the fold…

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

So, I’m not sure how many folks have emailed or called their Representatives, but I know we’re being heard or read, just maybe not responded to.  After posting my original post both here and on Political Forecast as well as forwarding an email out to the Iowa Rapid Response email list, I know many other activists around Iowa have sought to contact Representatives in the Iowa House.  Jerry Depew of IowaVoters.org has been a leading voice on voting reform efforts in Iowa and has gotten the same standard response from Dave Jacoby that T.M. Lindsey received.  I emailed Reps. Jo Oldson, Dave Jacoby, Dwayne Alons, Pat Murphy, and Kevin McCarthy.  So far I haven’t received any responses.  DesMoinesDem called Jo Oldson and left a message, and as far I as I know has not heard back.

Meanwhile, I have a correction to report.  Dwayne Alons is not the Republican member of the subcommittee, but Rod Roberts is.  Here is his contact information:

• Rep. Rod Roberts (R)

  House District 51 — Carroll County

  Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us

Sorry about the original confusion.  Please make sure to contact Rep. Roberts and find out where he stands on VOICE, HF 805.

Even if folks aren’t responding to your calls and emails, keep following up and putting the pressure on them to support the bill.  There may be concerns about funding and implementation, but that doesn’t mean the bill should be killed: It means the democratic process should be implemented, there should be a subcommittee hearing on the bill that is open to the public and that they should consider the problems with the bill there and work to improve it, not just kill it and put it aside for next year.  Iowans shouldn’t have to wait for the necessary reforms to our campaign finance system.

One final update, the calendar for tomorrow in the House has not yet been released.  As soon as I know if the House Appropriations Subcommittee plans on meeting, I’ll let you know.  We’ve got to get calls and emails (and follow-ups) in ASAP.  Keep up the hard work.

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Today, we need action at the grassroots and netroots level to the bring Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections law out of subcommittee, to the full House Appropriations Committee, and then to the floor for debate in the Iowa House.  Ed Fallon (and his group I’m For Iowa) and former Governor Tom Vilsack both support HF 805 and right now the bill is in an appropriations subcommittee with instructions to kill the bill.

Members of that subcommittee include:

• Rep. Dave Jacoby (D)

  House District 30 — Johnson County

  David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Jo Oldson (D)

  House District 61 — Polk County

  Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Dwayne Alons (R)

  House District 4 — Sioux County

  Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us

Please email them or call the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221 to get a hold of them and ask them to support HF 805, the VOICE legislation.  The subcommittee is expected to meet either tomorrow or Wednesday — without large citizen support and efforts to communicate that support to them, they’ll kill the bill.  We cannot allow that to happen.  If the bill comes out of the subcommittee, it essentially becomes “funnel-proof” and must then be considered before the full House Appropriations Committee and would likely make it to the floor of the House for consideration.

When you contact your legislators, use this email from T.M. Lindsey as an example — and remember, be POLITE!  Also, include in your email if they plan on voting for the bill or against the bill, both in subcommittee and in further debate.  If they email you back, please post the response in the comments section and we can work to further inquire about the bill and where its going.  From these responses, we’ll start to put a list together of where each Representative stands and we can put the pressure on them.

It’s being held up in the house by around ten Democratic legislators who are all either firm no votes or on the fence.  A disproportionate number of them are women, suggesting that Speaker Pat Murphy’s strong-arm tactics might not work so well on legislators of the fairer sex.  Whatever the problem with getting these legislators on board, it almost goes without saying that they are wrong for holding out.  Almost.

If one were feeling charitable, one might say that they are merely confused.  If Fair Share is about people paying a fair share for the specific services provided them by the union, then why would there be any opposition to amendments designed to restrict the fee to the specific costs of representing individual workers?  Good question.

In truth, Fair Share is as much about employees paying their fair share as Right To Work is about people having the right to work.  The ability for unions to control who could or couldn’t work for any particular employer ended with the Taft-Hartley act, way back in 1947.  Now, even in the most union-friendly set up available to states, employees can be required to join a union after they are hired but cannot be fired merely because the union rejects them for one reason or another.  Everyone has a right to work to work in every state for every employer as far as unions are concerned, so there is no reason for Iowa to restrict unions further.

What this is really about is whether Iowa should be an open-shop state (no) or a union-shop state (yes).  Unions are a good thing, and unions should be stronger.  Union-shop states have much higher overall wages – $6000 more for the median household income.  While their economies may not be growing as quickly, they tend to already be strong.  Out of the twenty poorest states in the country, fourteen are open shop states.  That’s bad by itself, but even worse when you realize there are only twenty-two open shop states total.  Out of the top ten richest states, nine are union shop.  (This data brought to you today by the National Right To Work Foundation, the U.S. Census and Math.)

Most of this is academic though, since enough of the legislators holding out signed pledges that they would support Fair Share legislation if it came up.  Anyone who goes back on their word now – I’m looking at you Doris Kelley – deserves a vigorous (and I suspect well-funded) primary in 2008.

“Town Hall” in quotes in the title because, not unlike a Bush ’04 event, questions are being screened.  The theme of the town hall is “health care,” so it makes some sense to screen out the sensible priority spammers, but don’t look for any tough questions about her failed handling of the health care initiative during the first Clinton administration either.  If you watch it and feel like the questions are a little too softball, let Jennifer Wlach at ABC know what you thought.

Tom and Christy Vilsack are speaking right now at the DFA training in the Cedar Rapids. They are focusing on clean elections and grassroots organizing.

Dave Loebsack spoke over lunch at the DFA training in Cedar Rapids today.  Loebsack was very well recieved and thanked the group of activists that helped him get elected in the 2nd district.  Loebsack talked a lot about the Iraq War and the funding bill that was passed yesterday in the US House.

From Mark Schmidt at The American Prospect:

One that might be of interest to liberals thinking about whether to support Clinton is “Labor Relations.” In this section, Senator Clinton’s top advisor [Mark Penn]’s company says, “Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor’s coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating … That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation.”

As I mentioned on my personal blog earlier today former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is expected to endorse former First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton in her bid for President at a Monday announcement here in Des Moines.  We can address my confusion about the situation over at Political Forecast, but in this post I want to focus on the substantive benefits of endorsements in the Iowa Caucuses.

David Yepsen has a front-page analysis on the endorsement on the Register’s website right now.  He argues that endorsements are part of the old politics in Iowa:

“In Iowa, endorsement politics is old politics. Nobody “delivers” anything anymore, particularly in high-profile races. Yet we media people make a big deal out of them, despite the fact Iowa just doesn’t have the sort of machine politics once seen in urban areas or ethnic neighborhoods. In those places, an endorsement from a key political leader or organization means something, because that leader can produce votes for the anointed candidate. Even in those places today, such influence is on the wane.”

To his credit, he does cite many examples like AFSCME’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 and Mike Blouin in 2006, Senator Tom Harkin’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004, and Vilsack’s endorsement of Dusky Terry in the Democratic Secretary of State primary as cases where high-profile endorsements don’t yield results.

In 2004, most statewide elected officials waited until late in the race to make endorsements.  According to the Democracy in Action 2004 page at GWU, most of the officials made their endorsements within the last two weeks in the lead up to the Caucuses.  Already in the 2008 race, Tom Miller and Michael Fitzgerald have endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, while Sen. Harkin had endorsed Tom Vilsack.  Their page says this:

“Whether or not endorsements make any difference on Caucus Night is debatable, but they are important in the pre-primary period when developing campaigns strive to build credibility.  Campaigns go to considerable effort to round up endorsements.  The first targets are prominent party leaders including elected officials, former officials, erstwhile candidates, and party activists.  In addition, campaigns seek support of community activists and business and civic leaders; Democratic candidates also woo labor support.

The timing and format of endorsement announcements can be significant.  A mass endorsement, with elected officials lined up behind the candidate, can draw significant attention.  Alternatively, rolling out a steady stream of endorsements over a period of time can bolster the impression of a growing campaign.  Picking up a prominent supporter who had formerly been with another campaign is regarded as a coup, worthy of a press release or press conference. “

Admittedly, the debate all depends on the statistics and results one decides to pull out.

So far, Vilsack’s endorsement might only mean that he’s encouraging his former staffers to take jobs with the Clinton campaign.  To some degree, that’s already happening.  Vilsack’s Polk County Organizer, Amanda York, has already signed on to Clinton’s campaign and was at Wednesday’s Polk County Dems Off-Year Caucus.  His former Deputy Internet Director, Kevin Thurman, also now works for Clinton’s campaign.  But Vilsack’s encouragement also might not mean as much to former staffers.  Udai Rohatgi, another Internet staffer, now works for the Obama Campaign.  Teresa Vilmain, one of Vilsack’s seasoned presidential campaign experts, is likely to sign on with Clinton as well (if she hasn’t already).  So, we’ll see where the chips end up falling.

I’m of the opinion that endorsements by local leaders are more likely to make a difference early on in the race to give credibility to the candidate and to get organization going.  High-profile officials tend to be more beneficial later on in the race, when you’re trying to reach out to undecideds and use a popular, high-profile official to say, “Your respected leader has faith in me and my campaign, please support me in your precinct caucus.”  Then again, I’m not a seasoned caucus veteran.  So, tell me what you think in the comments below.

Voting field in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is doing his job?

Voting entry in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Murphy is doing his job?