Coincidence of the Day: Branstad’s first appearance as an official candidate same day fundraising disclosures are released.

City of Des Moines wants to cut union pay and reduce health benefits to save money. Shockingly, union officials are not as excited about the plan.

Republican state Sen. Dave Hartsuch is attracting a lot of attention in SD41.

An Iowa perspective on U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s retirement.

Catholic school-girl impersonating county supervisor candidate skips out on Sierra Club candidate forum.

From the Globe Gazette:

The vote was 238 to 119, exactly the two-thirds majority vote needed for it to pass.

“I’m happy that they decided to go this direction because I think it sets the possibility for a new and stronger future for the congregation,” said Rev. Dean Hess, senior pastor at the Clear Lake church.

Carole Roth, church council president, said she was pleased with the results, too.

“Certainly God has spoken today,” she said.

Last month nine Iowa congregations joined a new sect of Lutheran churches, a signal that they were considering leaving the ELCA.

The ruling could have bigger ramifications down the road, as several filmmakers who have been denied tax credits weigh legal action against the state.

Iowa Eye Entertainment LLC sued the Iowa Department of Economic Development earlier this month alleging the state breached its contract regarding issuing tax credits to finance their work. The company received initial approval from the state to receive tax credits, but after Gov. Chet Culver suspended the film credit program in the wake of alleged misconduct, the filmmakers were told they were never under contract to get the credits.

District Judge Glenn Pille agreed with the company’s assertions and said he will hold a hearing Friday before he orders the state to issue the credits.

“The court finds that the underpinning facts surrounding plaintiff’s request are relatively undisputed,” Pille’s ruling said.

The state contends that the projects are among 109 that received initial approval but were not under contract to receive funding. Therefore, because there was no contract, the state is not required to provide funding. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has said that may not be true.

Miller’s spokesman, Bob Brammer, said the attorney general’s office is “considering all our options, including whether to ask the Iowa Supreme Court to review the decision.”

Congressional campaigns had to turn in their quarterly fundraising reports this week, documenting money raised and spent between July 1 and Sept. 30. Information about other elected officials and challengers is below.

Fourth District Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, is next on the list, raising $153,507 during the quarter. His campaign has nearly $420,000 cash on hand.

Third District Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Des Moines, raised $104,132, bringing his cash-on-hand total to $343,215.

Second District Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Mt. Vernon, raised $101,200 and has $278,404 cash on hand.

Fifth District Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, raised $70,570 and has $173,833 cash on hand.

Several challengers also filed reports. Republican Dave Funk, who is running against Boswell, raised $16,477and ended the quarter with $6,226 cash on hand. Democrat Mike Denklau, who is running against King, raised $13,615 but has more than $10,000 in campaign debt.

That’s because the trips were paid for by Latham’s political action committee and touted as fundraising events, a practice that is legal but that government reform advocates contend turns the PAC into little more than a slush fund designed to skirt campaign finance law.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames.

And an Iowa Independent investigation found similar trips to prestigious golf resorts around the country throughout 2008, all paid for with PAC money.

These types of political action committees, known as “Leadership PACs,” are designed as a way for lawmakers to raise money to be passed along to other members of their party for their campaigns. By making donations to members of their party, lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships.

But a joint investigation by the nonprofit news site ProPublica, ABC News and the Washington Post found that a majority of the money raised by leadership PACs goes to entertainment, administrative costs, fundraising and other categories that “are so vague that it’s impossible to know for sure how the money was spent.”

ProPublica found lawmakers used money from their PACs to pay for trips to places like Churchill Downs, Disney World and the Country Music Hall of Fame. They found that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., used nearly $65,000 to commission a portrait of himself.

All five of Iowa’s congressmen and both senators have leadership PACs (Sen. Tom Harkin has two). But Latham’s organization, dubbed For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC) is getting the lion’s share of attention.

Latham, along with House Minority Leader John Boehner, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, held a golf outing touted as a fundraiser for their leadership PACs at the Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia in July.

In June, Latham hosted an Atlantic City weekend to benefit his PAC. Lodging at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort cost FARM PAC $1,377.36.

Disclosure reports filed in 2008 with the Federal Election Commission show FARM PAC paid for hotel accommodations at prestigious golf resorts around the country, including the Greenbriar Resort in September;  The St. Regis Hotel-Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif. in August; and the LaQuinta Resort & Club near Palm Springs, Calif., in January.

Since returning to the capitol from the August recess, Latham has held two D.C. fundraisers for FARM PAC, with a third scheduled for Oct. 27.

FARM PAC has raised more than $75,000 this year. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the largest donors to FARM PAC in 2009 include Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), AT&T, California Dairies Inc. and Latham for Congress. The PAC raised $205,447 during the 2008 election cycle, with almost all of it coming from lobbyists, PACs and corporate leaders.

For some reason, ProPublica did not include Latham’s PAC in their breakdown of more than 400 leadership PACs. The site did, however, look at rest of Iowa’s congressional delegation and found that they have not followed down a similar path as Latham.

More than 80 percent of money spent during the 2008 election cycle by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley’s leadership PAC, Bringing Leadership Back PAC, was spent on campaign contributions to fellow Democrats.

Republican Rep. Steve King’s Conservative Principals PAC spent nearly 50 percent of its money on what ProPublica classifies as “entertainment, events and travel,” mostly on payments to the fundraising telecommunications company Liberty Phone Center.

Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack’s I-PAC and Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell’s BOSPAC spent almost all of the very small amount of money raised in 2008 on campaign contributions.

A little more than 70 percent of the money spent by Harkin’s Independent Action Inc. during the 2008 election cycle went for administrative costs. As for his To Organize a Majority PAC, more than 57 percent of its expenditures went to campaign contributions for Harkin’s senate colleagues, with 25 percent going to “fundraising consultants.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Hawkeye PAC spent nearly 78 percent of its money on campaign contributions.

Responding to a request for comment, Latham’s spokesman, Fred Love, said in an e-mail to the Iowa Independent that the congressman’s official office does not work with or speak on behalf of any campaign committees. Phone calls to the number listed for the Alexandria, Va., offices of FARM PAC were not answered.

For more background on the controversy surrounding leadership PACs, read ProPublica’s report here.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement filed the complaint after the Iowa Pharmacy Association failed to file a disclosure report for a function it held in February that was attended by 20 lawmakers and Gov. Chet Culver. The group only filed the paperwork after reporters began asking questions about the party due to the fact that Democratic state Rep. Kerry Burt attended the event on the evening of his drunk driving arrest.

The committee dismissed the complaint unanimously, although Senate Ethics Committee Chair Jack Kibbie said there would be a review of current Iowa code to see if changes should be made to improve accountability and transparency.

Before 2005, disclosure forms for these types of legislative functions were filed with the nonpartisan Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB). The board’s staff would also check the social calendar and call groups to make sure reports were filed on time.

The law was changed in 2005, and authority was given to legislative ethics committees. At that time, the IECDB discontinued the practice of ensuring the prompt filing of reports since it lost enforcement jurisdiction.

Since the law changed, the number of reports filed has gone down, from 101 in 206 to 90 this year.

The other difference, according to the state’s campaign law, is the IECDB can investigate an issue on its own motion. The legislative ethics committees do not have that power.

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.

“We expect Sen. Jack Kibbie to lead the charge to restore oversight and enforcement of lobbyist function reports to the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board,” Mason said.

Iowa CCI found 26 additional late-filing disclosure violations by lobbyist groups during the 2009 legislative session. This amount represents nearly one-third of the 90 reports that were filed in 2009.

In order to open a legislative investigation, a third party must file a formal ethics complaint.

This process has come under scrutiny of late after the Iowa Pharmacy Association failed to file a disclosure report for a function it held in February attended by 20 lawmakers and Gov. Chet Culver until after reporters began questions about the party – five months late.

Iowa law dictates that lobbyists file disclosure reports within five business days following the date of receptions they host during a legislative session where lawmakers are invited.

In response to the news that legislators are unable to initiate an investigation into violations of campaign law, Des Moines activist organization Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement announced Wednesday that they have filed a formal complaint against the Iowa Pharmacy Association with the chief clerk of the House and secretary of the Senate.

“We shouldn’t have to jump through this many hoops to get people to follow the law,” said Adam Mason, an organizer with Iowa CCI. “But legislators aren’t able to do it.”

Iowa CCI’s initial research has uncovered 26 additional late-filing disclosure violations by lobbyist groups during the 2009 legislative session. This amount represents nearly one-third of the 90 reports that were filed in 2009. Of those late reports, 11 were filed more than two months late, Mason said.

“We are also requesting this past sessions social calendar, so we can assess how many lobbyists and associations have not filed,” Mason said. “I’m sure we are going to find many more groups that haven’t filed, and we will look into filing complaints against those groups as well.”

Before 2005, forms were filed with the nonpartisan Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB). The board’s staff would also check the social calendar and call groups to make sure reports were filed on time.

The law was changed in 2005, giving authority to legislative ethics committees. At that time, the IECDB discontinued the practice of ensuring the prompt filing of reports, since it lost enforcement jurisdiction.

Since the law changed, the number of reports filed has gone down, from 101 in 206 to 90 this year.

The other difference, according to the state’s campaign law, is the IECDB can investigate an issue on its own motion, according to Charlie Smithson, the board’s executive director. The legislative ethics committees do not have that power.

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.

That means a third party would have to discover a violation to campaign law and file a complaint for a group to suffer any penalty for its indiscretion.

Mason called for the legislature to give oversight authority back to the IECDB, who he said did an admirable job of policing these events over the years.

“Right now its like the fox guarding the hen house,” he said. “It’s just crazy.”

In addition to returning authority to the IECDB, Mason’s group is calling for campaign contribution limits, public financing of elections and for tougher enforcement when a law is broken.

“We’re allowing lobbyists to wine and dine our lawmakers and basically buy influence,” Mason said.

Although six decades have passed since Truman began the debate, echoes of his arguments, as well as those of his opponents, continue to reverberate across the country. But the back-and-forth between supporters of universal health care and those who call the idea ’socialist’ has evolved. A consensus is emerging in support of reform, and the Truman-era specter of socialism doesn’t pack the same political punch.

In response, conservatives are injecting a new values-based argument into the mix, arguing that hidden within the current national debate on health care reform is a proxy battle between supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal ‘Title X’ funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman’s life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

Regardless, conservative abortion opponents are stoking concerns that the current debate over health care reform could result in a bill that, without a specific exclusion, might usurp federal mandates barring the use of government funds for abortion services.

Just hours before he addressed Republican activists in eastern Iowa last Friday, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood’s funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions.

Pence’s proposal, offered as an amendment to an appropriations bill, was soundly defeated on a 247-183 vote. As expected, the vote went primarily along party lines with Democrats voting against and Republican voting in favor.

That is not always how the issue breaks down. Some Democrats, like U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), are working with the GOP to ensure that any new health care reform measures enacted by congress do not end up subsidizing abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else.

“I was disappointed that Congressman Stupak did not vote for my amendment denying federal funding to Planned Parenthood,” Pence told The Iowa Independent following his public remarks Friday night.

Stupak, who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, was co-author of a letter, signed by 19 Democratic members of Congress and delivered to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in late June, that called for an explicit exclusion of abortion services in any health care reform. Stupak has also threatened to stall debate on health care reform in the House if the reform bill does not include such an exclusion.

Pence is skeptical of those efforts. “I think [Friday's] vote bodes ill for pro-life Democrats in the Congress who are hoping that a government-run health insurance plan will not cover abortion services,” he said. “We brought a bill to the floor that essentially said no federal funding will go to Planned Parenthood in Title X, and we were only able to get 183 votes in the House.”

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden “abortion mandate.”

“I think pro-life Americans and my pro-life Democratic colleagues should be very concerned about the president’s insistence on creating a government-run insurance option,” Pence said. “My belief is that — if they offer a new government-run insurance option for all Americans — that it is almost inevitable that it will eventually cover abortion.”

Pence’s sentiments echoed the fears expressed by many activists last week during a national anti-abortion webcast called “Stop the Abortion Mandate.”

“What you probably haven’t heard is that the health care bill being advanced by Democrats is the abortion industry’s dream come true. In fact it is the most disturbing piece of pro-abortion legislation in recent memory,” James Dobson of Focus on the Family told webcast participants.

Speakers who took part in the webcast painted a grim picture for those who oppose abortion: Passage of health care reform not containing a specific exclusion for reproductive health services will result in the closure of Catholic hospitals, the refusal of “pro-life” individuals to enter the medical field and the collapse of Crisis Pregnancy Centers due to the lack of medical personnel who oppose abortion.

“This is quite literally a defining moment for us,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life. “If the abortion lobby succeeds in defining abortion as health care, it will have shifted the entire debate.”

Despite national news of potential health care compromises, presenters on the anti-abortion webcast made clear that such negotiations were unwelcome and mostly imagined.

“Do not depend on the mainstream news media to keep you accurately informed about developments on this critical issue,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

“Just today a major cable network gave airtime to a congressman named Tim Ryan of Ohio who is working closely with abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood and Third Way. This network allowed Congressman Ryan to pose as spokesperson for our side of the issue, misrepresent the content of the Obama bills and lie about our policy goals.”

Ryan, a Democrat who opposes abortion rights, and U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor the bill titled “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act,” which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League and executive director of STOPP International, described by the webcast moderator as “an expert on Planned Parenthood,” described why the current battle actually goes far beyond what the public identifies as abortion to encompass nearly all reproductive health services.

“Over the last 15 years, [Planned Parenthood] has figured out that what it needs to do is put abortion and abortifacient birth control products into national health care,” he said. “They are the operator of the largest abortion chain in the nation … plus they kill millions more with their abortifacient birth control. We don’t want abortion as a part of health care. We don’t want abortifacient birth control as a part of health care.”

Sedlak and his supporters consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women’s reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

Among Iowa’s elected officials, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley plays perhaps the most important role in the ongoing national health care reform debate. A staunch opponent of abortion rights, he signaled in March that any sort of government funding for abortion services was one of the only ideas that he would never accept in negotiations.

“Senator Grassley is opposed to mandating abortion coverage in health care legislation,” Jill Kozeny, a spokeswoman for Grassley told Newsweek. What the article does not detail, and what Grassley has yet to tell the public, is whether his definition of abortion services includes contraceptives.

Health care reform has eluded a generation of politicians already, so no one expected President Barack Obama’s proposed public health insurance option to be an easy lift in Washington, D.C. Under the added weight of a riled-up anti-abortion movement, it could be even harder than expected.

An earlier version of House File 794 cleared the House Labor Committee March 12, making it eligible for debate later in the session. The legislation allows public employees to negotiate a wider range of issues than what is permitted under current law. A similar bill was passed last year, but Gov. Chet Culver vetoed it, making enemies of important labor unions and Democratic legislators in the process.

Opponents say the bill would result in tax increases because if public employers and employees can’t reach an agreement on the broader array of topics, an arbitrator would make the final decision. Supporters say only 1 percent of negotiations actually end up with an arbitrator. They also say the proposal would increase workplace safety and productivity and could help Iowa reduce its projected skilled worker shortage by boosting salaries.

A recent poll by The Des Moines Register found that expanding collective bargaining was favored by 63 percent of Iowans. Of the four major labor-backed bills being considered this session, it was the only one to receive public support in the poll.

During a press conference Thursday morning, House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he was unaware the bill was coming up in committee.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the bill at 5 p.m.

According to the Southern Illinoisan, Yepsen will start his new job April 1.  Here’s what he had to say about his goals:

“Paul Simon’s legacy prompted me to apply,” Yepsen said.  ” I am really interested in spending the rest of my life in public service, teaching and working with students and working in the public policy arena.”

Yepsen said he plans to focus the institute on two major issues – the needs of students in higher education and ethics in government, something he said is no longer a laughing matter in Illinois.