Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
A campaign finance law passed unanimously by the 2010 Iowa Legislature in response to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision has survived legal challenge from the Iowa Right to Life Committee.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert W. Pratt ruled in summary judgment (embedded in full below) to deny three of the four points of law brought by the state anti-abortion organization, which charged state law violated the organization’s 1st and 14th Amendment rights and instituted undue burdens, “chilling” it from making an independent expenditure of more than $750 to support election of then-GOP Attorney General candidate Brenna Findley. On the final count brought by Iowa Right to Life, Pratt postponed his final ruling “until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on — or declines to answer — the statutory-interpretation questions certified.”
The Iowa law — passed unanimously by the Iowa House and Senate in March 2010 and signed into law by Gov. Chet Culver on April 8, 2010, making Iowa one of the first states to officially respond to Citizens — was given little interest from lobbyists at the time and despite the fact that it spent six weeks in the Legislative process. It mandated that corporations and unions disclose their political spending to state regulators at the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board and that such groups must identify themselves in political advertising.
Citizens United resulted in the removal of key restraints on corporate election spending, specifically spending that supports or opposes a specific candidate, and essentially resulted in unlimited corporate political expenditures. In signing the Iowa regulations, Culver said that while he respected SCOTUS’s decision-making authority, the state was obligated to “continue to do all that we can to make sure that our elections process is clean and transparent and that all Iowans can clearly and easily know which companies are donating to elections.”
The Iowa Right to Life Committee, which functions as a corporation, charged in its lawsuit that the state was forcing it to form a political action committee (PAC) in order for it to campaign and expend funds on behalf of candidates. When the suit was filed in September 2010, the legal team for Iowa Right to Life (which was led by James Bopp) asked for an immediate injunction of the Iowa law, but the request was denied.
In a press release shortly following submission of the lawsuit the James Madison Center for Free Speech described the Iowa provisions as “burdensome.”
“Iowa’s attempt to subvert the Supreme Court and burden the speech of corporations is unconstitutional,” Bopp noted in that release (no longer available online).
Pratt wrote in his summary judgment:
In this case, IRTL argues that “Iowa law is like the burdensome, PAC-style disclosure Citizens [United] found ‘burdensome’ and ‘onerous’” and suggests that the challenged provisions are substantially more burdensome than the disclosure laws that were upheld in Citizens United. … Specifically, IRTL objects to Iowa’s requirements that groups making independent expenditures: (1) file Form Ind-Exp-O “within forty-eight hours”; (2) remain registered as “independent expenditure committees” until they file a termination report; and (3) file periodic reports. …
Considered as a whole, the challenged provisions “collectively impose no materially greater burden on corporations than the disclosure laws at issue in Citizens United. The information required by Form Ind-Exp-O “about the corporation’s contributions and expenditures is similar to the disclosure requirements upheld in Citizens United. … Even the specific requirement challenged by IRTL — i.e., the 48-hour deadline for filing Form Ind-Exp-O and the periodic reporting requirement — are sufficiently tailored because, when viewed in the context of the entire Iowa regulatory scheme, these requirements “greatly enhance[] the transparency of corporate expenditures while imposing only [a] reasonable burden.”
Pratt also said, quoting heavily from an earlier decision by the 8th Circuit Appellate Court on a similar matter, that the state’s ban on direct corporate contributions serves the purpose of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption and, therefore, is constitutional. Because Iowa Right to Life failed to document how the new Iowa reporting requirements would force their corporation “to make any changes at all — let alone significant changes –” Pratt denied the group’s 1st Amendment charge. Pratt also denied charges related to the 14th Amendment because “contrary to IRTL’s assertion, this provision does not discriminate between corporations and ‘other groups or associations.’”
In the count referred back to the Iowa Supreme Court for clarification, IRTL argued that provisions within the new law “unconstitutionally impose[] political-committee (‘PAC’) status on groups whose major purpose is not the nomination or election of candidates.” The state, of course, argued that Iowa law has never sought to impose PAC status on an independent expenditure committee, but Pratt saw ambiguity within the Iowa law. He noted that currently state statutes do not offer guidance on how two opposing sections should be applied when an organization could arguably be classified as both a PAC and an independent expenditure committee.
The Court is still not convinced that IRTL’s dual-coverage interpretation of the statute is reasonable in light of the plain text of Iowa Code 68A.404(3)(b) or that Iowa will interpret its statute in the way IRTL fears; however, this Court is generally without authority to construe or narrow state statutes.
The two certified questions sent by Pratt to the Iowa Supreme Court ask how the state will label corporations not previously registered as a political committee if the organization makes independent expenditures in excess of $750 in a calendar year; and also if a corporation that has not previously registered and was organized for purposes other than engaging in election activities would become a “permanent organization” under Iowa law if it makes the same level of expenditures.
Iowa Court rules require the federal clerk of court to submit a certification order to the state clerk of court. To date, that has not occurred. Once it does, the court accepts briefs, can request additional information and basically handles the questions like any other that come before the court. According to an Iowa Judicial Branch spokesman, there is no standing time limit by which the questions must be answered.
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter