U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

“Talk about an activist Supreme Court — they decided an issue that wasn’t really even in front of them,” Harkin said during a conference call with reporters. “In fact, the case that was in front of them, they decided the other way, but they reached into this other area and brought it out and made a decision on something that wasn’t really in front of them. Now, what’s the definition of an activist Supreme Court?”

After initially hearing arguments on both sides of the issue March, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked the litigants to re-argue the case with a broader focus. Instead of only arguing whether federal election laws should have applied in this particular case, Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse rulings in two prior cases upholding the government’s ability to limit corporate and union election spending.

Harkin said after year’s of conservative outrage about “activist judges,” it was the conservative members of the Supreme Court that made this decision.

“What they basically did is overturn standing law — what has been standing law in this country since 1907,” he said. “A ban on corporate political spending.”

The court ignored “precedent here going back 100 years” in its decision, concluding that “money is equal to speech.”

“As recently as 1990, in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the court upheld a state law that banned corporations from making independent expenditures, using corporate fund,” Harkin said. “The court today just overturned the 1990 ruling. So, what has happened to precedent here? I think people ought to be very alarmed by this decision by this Supreme Court. What it means is that corporations now can just put whatever amount of money they want to into an election — specifically opposing or supporting a candidate. In the past at least they could only do issue ads, but now they can support or oppose a candidate openly, and right up until election day. No more bans on 90 day [before an election] and things like that. Someone described as us being back in the wild, wild west as far as campaigns go.”

The ultimate victor of this decision will be Republicans, Harkin said, because “all the things that Republicans are for, is what corporate America is for.”

“And I think you will see more money poured into these campaigns this year by corporate America than you have ever seen in your lifetime, and it will be poured in on behalf of Republicans,” he said. “Mark my word.”

Corporate America has enough strength and power on its own without the help of the Supreme Court, he said.

Harkin concluded that to overcome this decision Congress should amend the country’s constitution, although he admitted it will be easier said than done.

“So, hang onto your hat, it’s going to be wild ride this year.”

However, health care reform advocates say King’s assertions are at best stretching the truth and at worst outright falsehoods.

U.S. Rep. Steve King

In an interview Wednesday with the Christian news service OneNewsNow.com, King asserted that according to numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, 5.6 million illegal immigrants would receive insurance under a plan backed by House Democrats and President Obama.

The interview follows a press release King sent out last week claiming the legislation would provide healthcare to illegal immigrants because it doesn’t require recipients to verify their citizenship.

The bill actually does contain language pertaining to those in the United States illegally. Section 246 of the bill is titled “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. (page 143)” It reads:

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for federal health programs under current law. They can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. But they can’t get non-emergency care unless they pay and are ineligible for most other public benefits.

King’s 5.6 million figure is based on some quick arithmetic with CBO projections. The office’s report states that if health reform legislation is passed, there will be 17 million Americans with no insurance in 2019, nearly half of which will consist of illegal immigrants. King then takes estimates for the total number of illegal immigrants in 2019, which is 14.1 million, and subtracts half of 17 million (8.5 million) to get his figure.

As the nonpartisan FactCheck.org pointed out, about half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have health care coverage now.

As the CBO itself said in a December 2008 report: “studies indicate that of the roughly 12 million unauthorized immigrants in this country [now], about half have health insurance and half are uninsured.”

The nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 41 percent of “unauthorized migrants” are insured.

The CBO research says nothing about illegal immigrants receiving health care benefits because the report was predicated on the idea that they are not be eligible for coverage under the proposed legislation.

While many are advocating the inclusion of an insurance option for illegal immigrants, especially immigrant children, the idea has been repeatedly shot down. President Obama told CBS News that he does not support including illegal immigrants in a government-run insurance option.

On Republican candidate Stephen Burgmeier’s Web page for volunteers, the two names listed as contacts are Katie Koberg and Mary Earnhardt, who were announced last November as members of Iowans for Tax Relief’s “new leadership team.”

Koberg is listed as a vice president of the conservative group, and Earnhardt is listed as its policy director.

Notably, Kay Henderson reports that ITR’s political action committee (PAC) has not had a very good fundraising year so far. ITR President Ed Failor, Jr., told Henderson that the big money he claimed his group raised earlier in the year was mostly going into the group’s 501(c)(4) account, not its PAC account (a claim that cannot be independently verified). That means ITR may not be able to offer its support in cash, but it can make up for that with manpower.

Any outside supporters Democrat Curt Hanson might have are doing a better job of covering their tracks so far. All we know for sure is that the press release announcing Hanson’s candidacy was sent out by Kevin Boyd, who oversees campaigns for the House Democrats’ Truman Fund, and that wasn’t much of a surprise.

Two well-placed sources told Iowa Independent last night that Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign plans to direct their supporters to Sen. Barack Obama in precincts where their candidate does not reach the 15% threshold for viability.

Today, more sources have come forward to tell Iowa Independent that some supporters of Sen. Barack Obama have been directed to swing delegates to Gov. Bill Richardson in certain counties and precincts.  Sources confirm that in at least three counties, Obama campaign field organizers have told their supporters to drive support to Richardson. The three confirmed counties are all likely Obama strongholds, and each county will assign a relatively high number of delegates tonight.  We have decided not to list the counties by name to protect sources’ anonymity.

Obama activists in certain other counties denied receiving instructions for Richardson-Obama vote-swapping.  We have heard similar rumors about precinct-specific deals between Obama and Sen. Joe Biden, although we have been unable to confirm them.

As more reports come in, we will continue to update this post with new information.  That said, the deal is likely to manifest itself in ways that will be difficult to detect, even after the caucuses are over.  So what exactly happens in the 1,784 precinct caucuses across the state may be difficult to explain for some time.

The Richardson campaign continues to deny our reports.

If you know anything please email us tips, anonymity assured.

According to a report from the Associated Press, a dozen gay and lesbian couples were at the Polk County Recorder’s Office when it opened this morning. Roughly 20 couples succeeded in applying for marriage licenses before Polk Judge Robert Hanson stayed his ruling from Thursday that Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act violated constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The ruling is expected to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

A marriage license approval in Iowa typically takes three days. Fritz and McQuillan were able skip the waiting period by paying a fee and presenting a signed waiver. This morning, the Rev. Mark Stringer declared the couple legally married in a ceremony on the minister’s front lawn in Des Moines.

Although some have referred to the judge’s ruling as a “moral victory for equal rights,” not all Iowans agree.

“No judge can overrule God,” Brad Cranston, pastor of the Heritage Baptist Church in Burlington, told The Hawk Eye. “It’s a clash of morality and legality.”