When Congress passed new consumer protections for credit card holders last May, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., successfully attached a not-at-all-related amendment allowing firearms in national parks, so long as gun carriers comply with laws of the state in which the park is located. That law is now scheduled to take effect on Feb. 22.

In preview, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees has released examples of some of the activities soon to be permitted under the new statute.

In Wyoming’s Yellowstone Park, for example, backcountry hikers will be free to openly carry firearms. At Virginia’s Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, concertgoers — including those picnicking on the lawn —  will have the same opportunity. In Alaska’s Denali and Colorado’s Mesa Verde parks, handguns in holsters might soon be in fashion. Visitors to Pennsylvania’s Gettysburg National Park — a popular field-trip destination for the area’s public schools — will be able to carry rifles across those battlefields. The list goes on.

For it’s part, CNPSR opposes the changes, citing the heightened risk for rangers and the increased likelihood that wildlife — as well as natural and historical monuments — will become irresistible targets.

“A feeling of safety and security will be replaced by wariness and suspicion,” Bill Wade, chair of CNPSR’s executive council and former head of Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park, said in a statement. “This diminishes some of the ’specialness and reverence’ our citizens have long accorded to their national parks.”

Too bad for Wade that his voice doesn’t carry quite so far on Capitol Hill as that of the National Rifle Association.

Offenburger, formerly with The Des Moines Register and now managing his own Web site, said back in September that the movement to draft Branstad into the Republican gubernatorial primary was a “black eye for the Republican Party of Iowa” because it sent the message that there was no one qualified to turn over leadership to.

Since that time, though, Branstad has entered the GOP primary and is considered by many to be the front runner.

That hasn’t changed Offenburger’s opinion.

I’m still opposed.

I want to say again that, yes, I was a strong supporter of Branstad in his first four terms, and I wrote favorably about him then in my Des Moines Register columns. But enough’s enough. I think his campaign now is stunting the Iowa Republican Party. It’s a terrible affront to the good Republican candidates who got into the gubernatorial race before he did. It is sending an awful message to younger Iowans, those in their 30s and 40s who should be moving into leadership positions now but are being denied by Baby Boomers who won’t leave the stage. You can read more of my objections by checking the earlier columns, which you can get by clicking here and here.

A November poll by The Des Moines Register showed Branstad with a big lead on incumbent Democratic Gov. Chet Culver. An internal poll leaked by Branstad’s campaign also showed him with a big lead among likely primary voters.

The case involves a front desk clerk at an Iowa hotel who believes she was fired for not being pretty enough.

The Iowa woman, Breanna Lewis, began working for Waterloo-based Heartland Inns of America L.L.C. in July 2005. During her employment over the next 18 months, according to court records, she worked several guest services positions and received commendations from local supervisors for her work. In December 2006, she was hired full-time to work the front desk at the company’s property in Ankeny.

Lewis alleges that after Barbara Cullinan, the director of operations who had approved her promotion by phone, saw her in the position that she was identified as not being a “good fit” for the front desk due to her lack of “prettiness” and a “Midwestern girl look.” Lewis has agreed that she appears somewhat masculine, doesn’t typically apply make-up and prefers clothing that is loose fitting.  When the local supervisor refused to remove Lewis from the front desk position, she was asked to resign and then told Lewis about the comments.

Cullinan required Lewis attend a secondary interview for the front desk job, which Lewis protested but did ultimately attend. The two discussed policy changes at the hotel chain, and Lewis was encouraged to offer her opinion of the changes. The termination letter Lewis received three days later indicated that she had protested the “proposed interview procedure” and that she was hostile toward the most recent policies.

Lewis subsequently filed suit against Heartland, asserting that she was terminated for not conforming to gender stereotypes, a violation of Iowa civil rights law. The company requested and received summary judgment (case dismissal) from the district court on grounds that Lewis lacked evidence proving that she was treated differently that similarly employed males in the company.

The Eighth Circuit ruled that the Iowa civil rights law was “never intended to be rigid, mechanized or ritualistic,” and then quoted the U.S. Supreme Court: “The principal focus of [the law] is the protection of the individual employee, rather than the protection of the minority group as a whole.”

Lewis, according to the appellate court, is not require to produce evidence that she was treated differently than male employees, but need only prove that her termination from Heartland was likely done due to discriminatory practices against her as an individual.

The lower court will now once again take up the question.

Scott Brown, the Republican newly elected to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has been surprisingly forthcoming about his vote in favor of the health reforms adopted by Massachusetts a few years back — reforms that include the same individual coverage mandate that many Republicans on Capitol Hill have declared unconstitutional.

And while many Republicans are spinning Brown’s victory as an indictment of the Democrats’ health reform push, The Washington Post’s Alec MacGillis today points out the inaccuracy of that argument.

Brown, he writes, “rode to victory on a message more nuanced than flat-out resistance to universal health coverage: Massachusetts residents, he said, already had insurance and should not have to pay for it elsewhere.”

“We have insurance here in Massachusetts,” he said in a campaign debate. “I’m not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states have failed to do.”

What Brown failed to mention is the inconvenient fact that the Massachusetts reform plan (1) focused on coverage, not cost containment (not exactly an approach championed by the fiscally conservative), and (2) relies heavily on federal subsidies to fund an expansion of the state’s Medicaid and CHIP programs, among others. In October, the New England Journal of Medicine, using state data, reported that the federal government dedicated $688 million to Massachusetts health care in 2006, before the reforms took effect. In 2007, after the reforms were in place, that number jumped to $816 million. In 2008, it was $888 million. Last year, it was projected to approach $1.3 billion.

So while Brown says he’s not going to subsidize what other states failed to do, other states are busy subsidizing what Massachusetts has done. He should at least acknowledge that fact as he continues to oppose the Democrats’ proposals.

Mike Lillis covers Congress for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site. ]]> http://iowaindependent.com/26171/the-irony-of-scott-brown%e2%80%99s-opposition-to-health-care-reform/feed 0 http://iowaindependent.com/25991/house-committee-to-take-up-lobbyist-gift-bill http://iowaindependent.com/25991/house-committee-to-take-up-lobbyist-gift-bill#comments Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:44:12 +0000 Jason Hancock http://iowaindependent.com/?p=25991 State lawmakers will discuss rules governing public disclosure of lobbyist-sponsored legislative parties Wednesday at 11 a.m.

Iowa law currently dictates that lobbyists file disclosure reports within five business days following the date of receptions they host during a legislative session where all lawmakers are invited. Those reports must be filed with the legislative ethics committee.

House Study Bill 506 changes to deadline from five business days to 21 calendar days. But the report must now be filed with the nonpartisan Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB), a key change good-government advocates say will drastically improve the process.

In 2005, lawmakers stripped the IECDB of its oversight authority of lobbyist-funded events, and the result, some say, was a dramatic drop in the number of “session reports” being filed. There were 117 reports filed in 2005. That number dropped to 101 in 2006 and 104 in 2007. By 2009, only 90 reports were originally filed concerning lobbyist-sponsored functions held during the legislative session where all lawmakers were invited. That number increased to 101 after problems with the system came to light.

The situation came to a head after state Rep. Kerry Burt, D-Waterloo, was arrested last year for drunk driving the same night he attended a reception at Embassy Suites in downtown Des Moines that was paid for by the Iowa Pharmacy Association (IPA). The reception was attended by 20 lawmakers and Gov. Chet Culver.

It took five months for the IPA to file its “session report,” and it only did after reporters began asking questions about the party in light of Burt’s arrest.

The legislation being discussed Wednesday does not appear to address another concern with current rules governing lobbyist parties. Section 68B.31 of Iowa’s campaign law lays out the powers, responsibilities and format of the legislative ethics committees. It can prepare rules relating to lobbyists and lobbying activities, issue non-binding advisory opinions interpreting the intent of constitutional and statutory provisions, recommend legislation and hear complaints against legislators or lobbyists. But neither the House nor the Senate has the powr to initiate an investigation on their own, meaning someone has to discover a violation took place and file a complaint before the ethics committees can get involved.

UPDATE AT NOON: The House Ethics Committee passed HSB506 unanimously.

The alfalfa seeds in question, like most of Monsanto’s products, are resistant to the active ingredient glyphosate used in the company’s trademark Roundup herbicide. Although the seeds were initially approved for use in 2005 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the approval was done after the department determined it did not need to conduct a formal environmental review. Environmental groups and a conventional seed company, Geertson Seed Farms, began their lawsuit in 2006 to force federal officials to fully explore the environmental impacts of the seed.

A federal judge agreed that a full review should have been completed by the USDA prior to approval of the seed, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling. Although farmers who had already planted the crop were allowed to continue, Monsanto was barred from further distribution of the product. In October 2009, Monsanto filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of the case.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, called the case “truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle.” His organization joined in the 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice for plant alfalfa which was not genetically modified. Although such an argument would be a moot point in Iowa due to a 2005 law that prevents local authorities from deciding what types of crops will be grown, the case originated in Oregon where local entities can still determine the types of crops that will be allowed.

As the case has made its way through the courts, the USDA has continued processing an environmental review of the seed, and began a 60-day comment period on its draft impact statement in mid-December.

“That Monsanto has pushed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though the USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides,” Kimbrell said.

Environmental groups point out that alfalfa is the first perennial crop, open-pollinated by bees, that has been genetically engineered. While farmers have learned to take steps to prevent contamination of modified crops to non-modified crops, environmentalists argue that insects are not as easily trained and can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles. Alfalfa is primarily used for livestock feed, and is planted in the spring or fall. The U.S. currently has about 22 million acres of alfalfa, according to documents filed with the court, and, due primarily to the court-ordered delay of Monsanto distribution, roughly 1 percent are planted with the modified seeds.

While the case the U.S. Supreme Court is set to review specifically addresses alfalfa seeds, there is another Monsanto biotech crop at risk — one in which the company has far more invested. In September 2009, a California judge ruled that the USDA wrongly approved the sale of modified sugar beet seeds in 2005, and also ordered the federal agency to more fully review the environmental impacts of the crop. While the judge did not specifically order a ban on distribution of the seed, the environmental groups who brought the case are now seeking a similar court injunction as was placed on alfalfa, pending the more extensive impact statement from the USDA.

While modified alfalfa makes up only 1 percent of the U.S. crop, modified sugar beets — which provide the U.S. with half of its sugar — comprise more than 90 percent.

“[The] USDA’s regulatory approval process was short-circuited without any hearing to consider the views of impacted farmers and consideration of sound science,” Stephen Walker, lead for Monsanto’s alfalfa and sugar beet interests, said in a prepared statement. “We view the Supreme Court’s action to hear our appeal as important for American farmers and look forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court in the coming months. We believe alfalfa growers deserve choice in the products that are available to them.”

In a brief filed with the court, the Washington Legal Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for free enterprise, urged the Supreme Court Justices to review the case and overturn “an appeals court decision that virtually requires a federal court to grant an injunction against proposed federal action whenever it finds that the federal government has not adequately completed a required environmental impact statement in compliance with federal law.” The organization believes that constraints granted under the National Environmental Policy Act should be automatically denied unless they are awarded on a basis to prevent irreparable harm.

“Unfortunately, environmental groups have been permitted for too long to use injunctions granted under NEPA to delay indefinitely those federal policies with which they disagree,” said Richard Stamp, chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

Justice Stephen Breyer will not take part in the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, issued the initial 2007 ruling against Monsanto.

In October, the group’s political action committee asked the FEC to issue an advisory opinion on whether state laws restricting robo calls should apply, or whether they are pre-empted by a less restrictive federal law. Ten states have laws that govern automated phone calls. Minnesota, for instance, requires campaigns to use live operators to introduce automated calls and get the consent of the person answering the phone to play them.

Several state attorneys general have urged the FEC allow the state statutes to stand, and last month they were successful. The FEC lissued two draft opinions — one that said it was not the federal government’s responsibility to govern state election laws and another that refused to issue a formal opinion on the idea. American Future Fund filed another brief asking the agency to reconsider.

As pointed out by the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, American Future Fund is being represented by Jason Torchinsky, who was also behind the American Center for Voting Rights.

That was the bogus “voting-rights” group that was set up by GOP operatives in 2005 to “give ‘think tank’ academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections,” as election law expert Rick Hasen has written.AFFPA also has ties to DCI Group, the notorious Republican consulting firm that has represented the Burmese junta and helped create “Smokers Rights” groups on behalf of RJ Reynolds.

Torchinsky works for Holtzman Vogel PLLC, D.C. law firm that was instrumental in the establishment of both the American Future Fund and its state-level counterpart, Iowa Progress Project (formerly Iowa Future Fund).

Beef Products Inc., better known locally by its BPI initials, is taken to task in the report filed by journalist Michael Moss for its use of ammonia to ready otherwise little-used beef trimmings for human consumption. The process, which the company has referred to as “pH enhancement,” was shown by a company-commissioned study and an Iowa State University study to be efficient to kill E. coli and other bacteria that is often present in those specific trimming sections.

“Officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli ‘to an undetectable level.’ They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat using in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products,” wrote Moss.

In the summer of 2007 one Waterloo BPI plant worker lost her life, another was severely injured and five others suffered minor injuries requiring emergency room treatment when an ammonia leak forced the shut down of the plant and neighboring plants. BPI settled with the Iowa Division of Labor for $648,000 as a result of the incident. A contracting crew working on the ammonia pipes in the plant at the time of the leak was also fined and reached a settlement.

The processed trimmings produced by BPI are used as a component in the hamburgers sold by many of the county’s fast-food giants, including McDonald’s and Burger King. It is also used as a component by grocery stores, the National School Lunch Program and other government agencies, such as correctional institutions.

But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays.

BPI operates plants in Iowa (Waterloo), Nebraska (South Sioux City), Kansas (Finney County), South Dakota (Dakota Dunes) and Texas (Amarillo). The company is headquartered in South Dakota, and was founded by Eldon N. Roth, a man who also has ties to Iowa’s renewable energy sector.

U.S. Rep. Steve King stood on the floor of the House and claimed President Barack Obama was ACORN's leader, but he also passed appropriation bills that funded the organization he's now attacking.

On Monday, he told the American Spectator, a conservative political magazine, that the problems associated  with ACORN are “thousands of times bigger than Watergate because Watergate was only a little break-in by a couple of guys.” He added that “by the time we pull ACORN out by its roots America’s going to understand just how big this is.”

Media Matters, an organization that plays watchdog for conservative talking points in news reporting, latched on to King’s statement and distributed a group of votes by the Iowa congressman that, at least in part, supported ACORN:

• FY 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, HR 4818, included a $140,000 teen delinquency prevention earmark for ACORN along with appropriations for foreign operations, export financing and other related programs.
• FY 2006 Department of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development appropriations, HR 3058, included $61 million for the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program, which provides ACORN with funding.
• The same bill, HR 3058, also included nearly $2 billion for the HOME investment partnerships program. Of that amount, $42 million was earmarked for housing counseling, which ACORN employs and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development trains and certifies.

Despite the tongue-in-cheek headline above, these votes do not make King a supporter of ACORN or their programs. Mostly, they simply add up to a Congressman who approved a very large slate of appropriations. It is, however, notable that King and other members of Congress now scrutinizing ACORN have made it a point to strip the organization of as many streams of federal funding as possible.

King’s recently piqued interest in ACORN’s funding, however, does follow a pattern outlined by Dr. Christopher R. Martin, a professor at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of a study on the media’s coverage of ACORN. Martin and Dr. Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles, found that prior to 2008 few Americans had any real knowledge about the organization, despite the fact that it was the largest community organizing group in the nation.

Within the study the two men present their case that the news stories about ACORN, which were predominantly focused on possible wrongdoing by the organization, were crafted and tested within the right-wing echo chamber before being pushed into the mainstream media during October 2008, just weeks ahead of the November presidential election. It was, in their estimation, a classic “October surprise” that would have garnered more reaction had it not been for the economic downturn — something the strategists, according to the two researchers, tried to link to ACORN via the foreclosure crisis.

“ACORN has become this huge kind of proxy for going after [President Barack] Obama,” Martin told The Iowa Independent in September.

Just days before, King stood on the floor of House with a Soviet-styled depiction of Obama behind him. With a metal pointer, King made the point that he believed Obama was ACORN’s “lead, chief organizer.”

Forty-six-year-old Dustin Honken of Britt was convicted on Oct. 14, 2004, of five counts of murdering witnesses, one count of soliciting murder of additional witnesses, one count of conspiring to murder witnesses, five counts of murder in furtherance of a drug conspiracy and five counts of murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise. The jury determined Honken should die on four counts involving the premeditated murder of two young girls, Kandi Duncan, age 10, and Amber Duncan, age 6.

Honken appealed his convictions and sentences, raising multiple issues. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and death sentences. Honken then filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court responded this week that “the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.”

He will have one year to file a petition for post-conviction relief, a form of constitutional challenge to his convictions and sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice will not schedule an execution date until Honken exhausts any such challenge.

In 2005, Honken’s girlfriend, Angela Johnson, 45, was convicted of aiding and abetting the same murders and was also sentenced to death. Although she also requested a review from the U.S. Supreme Court, her petition was denied last year.

In a plot to foil an ongoing methamphetamine investigation, Johnson lured victims into the hands of Honken, who authorities believe ultimately completed the murders. The victims included the two young girls and their mother, Johnson’s former boyfriend and a federal witness in Honken’s pending drug trial.

Johnson remains incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, which offers specialized medical and mental health services to female offenders. Honken is on death row in a federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which has the only chamber for federal death penalty recipients in the U.S.