The ads decry the “massive spending” and “backroom deals” in the legislation and quote President Barack Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comments during the 2008 campaign. The takeaway is that Congress should “start over and get health care right,” a meme that has become the Republican Party’s main argument following the president’s health care summit last month.

All 18 districts targeted were won by Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

“During the 2008 election, President Obama made news in the last campaign when he said if you put lipstick on a pig — it’s still a pig,” AFF president Sandy Greiner said in a statement. “Mr. President, we agree with you.”

American Future Fund’s most recent work came in the Massachusetts Senate campaign won by Republican Scott Brown. The group spend $400,000 on ads that were decried by Brown himself, who said he didn’t want the election decided by outside groups.

Back in 2008, the group spent more than $4 million on ads in Senate campaigns across the country. Although most of the candidates the group supported were defeated on Election Day, the group quickly declared itself the conservative answer to President Barack Obama’s “fundraising machine.” In 2009, the group launched ads attacking Blue Dog Democrats for their support of health care reform and helped organized and advertise the summer Tea Party protests. They also made a failed attempt to overturn laws in several states restricting robocalls.

In addition to her work with AFF, Greiner, a former Republican state lawmaker who has announced she is running for state senate this year, helped form a 527 organization to convince Terry Branstad to join the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary. A number of American Future Fund’s past and present leaders have strong ties to Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign, including its former communications director, past president, and numerous people associated with AFF’s sister organization, Iowa Progress Project.

Also among the group’s leaders are are two national media consultants who played key roles in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004 and the Willie Horton ad in 1988, both of which helped defeat Democratic presidential candidates.

Here is the ad:

The politics of Sandy Greiner, a former Iowa representative and current president of the nonprofit group American Future Fund, will benefit in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that loosened corporate purse strings for individual candidates, Morain said.

From the Sacramento Bee:

… Entities like Greiner’s operate in the shadows. Their donors are anonymous. The power behind them is rarely apparent. It’s impossible to track the exact amounts they spend on campaigns in any timely fashion.

[The] Supreme Court decision opened the way for corporations and unions to spend directly on federal campaigns, which means that groups like Greiner’s will be infused with yet more money. Unless federal law is changed, they and their donors will remain hidden from the voting public. …

Pundits from the left fret that the ruling will alter democracy as we know it. From the right, proponents say the ruling reaffirms the First Amendment by granting corporations the rights as individuals.

Both views contain truth. Here’s another truth: The public will never know how much corporations or unions give to political groups such as Greiner’s. So long as donors want anonymity, the federal system provides ways to spend money without ever being publicly identified.

American Future Fund is a nonprofit corporation similar to the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association. Such groups file tax returns publicly. But there is no requirement that they identify donors.

Anonymity is one reason people give to such groups. They don’t want the “annoyance” of being publicly identified, Greiner said. …

The American Future Fund, based in Des Moines, is a 501(c)4 nonprofit that advocates for conservative issues. In 2008 it garnered headlines by spending millions in competitive senate races around the country.

Scott Brown at a campaign rally in North Andover on Monday (Photo by David Weigel/Washington Independent).

“I talked to a lady this morning,” said Monroe, “who said, ‘I think he’s the white Obama! I’m voting for him!’”

Monroe laughed and shook her head. “I said, ‘Thank you so much! I’m so glad you’re voting for him!’ But: ‘the white Obama?’ She said it three times! I didn’t know how to respond!”

Behind her, clambering on and off of a snowbank outside a Littleton campaign office, Brown was demonstrating what that kindly “soft Dem” had been talking about. He was besieged by supporters, almost all of them handing over a campaign sign for him to autograph or asking him to pause for a photo. Handmade signs intermingled with official Brown signs–the most popular was “The People’s Seat,” adopted as a Brown slogan the nanosecond that he framed the race that way in his final debate with Coakley. What was supposed to be a short stop in this northeast Massachusetts town, which voted 2,963 to 2,106 for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, went on for an hour.

“There’s a Patriots game on tomorrow,” said one supporter. “You’re it!”

“Thank you!” said Brown, shaking the supporter’s hand and spinning around to shake more of them. “I’m going to meet all of you!” said Brown. “I’m going to meet all of you before I leave!”

Another voter dove in and snapped a photo of his two young daughters posing with the candidate. “Wasn’t that fun?” he said, shepherding them away. “You’re gonna remember this some day, when he’s the president.”

The rise of Scott Brown, from a promising local politician to a candidate now seen as likely to win on Tuesday evokes the rise of many other insurgent candidates who hit the electoral sweet spot. The Republican seen last year as the most natural candidate for the seat, former Gov. Mitt Romney, is so unpopular in the state that he has not come in to campaign for Brown. Andrew Card, former President Bush’s first chief of staff, attracted much national attention but passed on the race, sparing Republicans a potentially well-funded campaign that would have uneasily worn the “change” mantle. But Brown himself has explicitly compared his campaign to Obama’s bid for the presidency.

“Who ever heard of a guy from Wrentham getting elected to the U.S. Senate?” Brown asked rhetorically at a Sunday afternoon “People’s Rally” in Worcester, cross-scheduled with the president’s appearance in Boston. “As the president may remember, upsets like that have been known to happen before.”

For Republicans in Massachusetts, the comparison between the Brown campaign and the election of the first African-American president isn’t so strange. In numerous conversations, some echoed the terms that African-Americans used to describe Barack Obama after his victory in the Iowa Caucuses. They never thought the day would come. They’re nervous about how the other team could still take it away. Some Brown supporters re-appropriated Obama’s slogans in their signs, writing “Scott Brown: Change We Can Afford” or even “Change We Can Believe In.” (There were some less kind signs, such as “Kick Martha in Her Left-Wing Mass” and “Beat Martha and the Dementedcrats.”)

“With Obama, it was all about feeling good,” said Laurie Myers, an anti-sexual predator campaigner and Republican who’d worked with Brown to pass legislation in the state Senate. “Now, it’s about survival.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who landed in Massachusetts over the weekend to ensure “this is a legitimate election,” has made numerous comparisons between the Brown campaign and a presidential caucuses. And although the Brown camp attempted to distance itself from King, as well as Des Moines-based nonprofit the American Future Fund, their presence showed how much importantance the GOP is placing on the race.

In the campaign’s final stretch, Brown has perfected a stump speech, usually delivered on the bed of his GM truck with state senate license plates, that is more about his insurgency than his issues. The issues get an airing out – Brown is for “John F. Kennedy-style” across-the-board tax cuts, he wants to “start over” on health care reform, and he wants to try terrorists in military tribunals. All of that takes up a fraction of the speech. At a campaign stop in North Andover – which gave the Obama-Biden ticket a 7,756 to 6,933 win in 2008–after wending his way through hundreds of supporters, Brown asked the crowd to contrast Coakley’s negative ads with his “upbeat, healthy, fun campaign.”

“If you want to be part of something that is so special right now in the history of this state,” said Brown, talking through a bullhorn, “if you want to make a difference and send a message to Washington, D.C., that we will not be part of business as usual–if you want to bring fairness and openness back to government, as the 41st senator, I will be able to bring fairness back to government.”

That message of fairness and standing up to the “political machine” has only occasionally been given a really ideological tint. Brown’s ads have linked Coakley to the wildly unpopular Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. But he’s made much of the September 2009 passage of legislation to let the state appoint a placeholder senator until the special election (Brown voted against it) and the possibility that Democrats might not immediately let him take the Senate seat if he wins on Tuesday. He’s attacked Democrats in Washington for holding health care discussions in “back rooms,” a charge that resonates because candidate Obama once pledged not to let that happen.

“Whatever happened to putting the health care talks on C-Span?” asked Bill Pattenaude, an unaffiliated voter who said he’d backed Kennedy in every election but 1994, after the senator voted for NAFTA. “It’s all happening in back rooms! It’s bullshit! It’s un-American!”

The extent of Brown’s promise to make Washington “fair,” as opposed to gridlocked, is hard to discern. When asked whether he would join filibusters of any of Barack Obama’s nominees currently stalled in the senate, Brown said “No, no, no,” quickly moving on to shake more hands. But the speed of this campaign, and the slow reaction of Democrats who considered the seat safe until one week ago, has let Brown blur the details. While he has made massive headway against Coakley by accusing her of expecting “the Kennedy seat” to go to her without a fight, Brown has portrayed himself as a worthy heir to the larger Kennedy tradition. His first TV ad began with footage of John F. Kennedy explaining his 1962 tax cut, with the image suddenly shifting to Brown, finishing up Kennedy’s speech. Democrats point to Coakley’s failure to answer the ad–Brown would run two before she went on the air–as a crucial failure that let him define the race. But Republicans argue that Brown’s appeal to the sort of voters who used to back Kennedy is so natural that it couldn’t be helped.

“The turning point was when we ran the Kennedy ad,” said Ron Kaufman, a top Brown aide who said the crowd in North Andover was seven times larger than anything he’d seen on previous Massachusetts campaigns. “That got a great response.”

Several other Brown workers suggested that Joe Kennedy II, a former congressman and nephew of the senator who passed on this race, would have forced Brown into a different position and, if he’d worked harder than Coakley, made this a much less winnable race. (Some discussion has also focused on Vicki Kennedy, the late senator’s widow.) But Kaufman gave Brown more credit. “They say Coakley ran a bad campaign,” said Kaufman, “but look, people are angry.”

“Coakley’s not a bad person,” said Greg Rucki, a Democrat from Franklin who talked to TWI at Brown’s final rally in his hometown of Wrentham. “I know people who’ve worked with her. Her politics are the same as mine. But I think people here are ready for a change.”

David Weigel covers the conservative movement for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

CNN reports that Santorum, who is scheduled to visit Iowa in March to address the Iowa Christian Alliance in Des Moines, says he doesn’t foresee anyone stepping up to “articulate a conservative vision for our country’s future,” leaving it up to him to do so.

From Santorum’s letter to supporters of his America’s Foundation PAC:

I promise you, I will stop at nothing when it comes to defending our freedom and our values.

That’s the real reason why – after talking it over with my wife Karen and our kids – I am considering putting my name in for the 2012 presidential race.

Santorum originally sparked 2012 chatter in October when he visited Iowa to deliver two speeches: one at an event sponsored by Iowa Right to Life and another at an event sponsored by the American Future Fund. At the time he told Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson that the reaction he received for his Iowa visit fueled the flames of his presidential aspirations.

First came Des Moines-based nonprofit American Future Fund, which purchased $400,000 worth of television time to attack Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. Brown immediately tried to distance himself from the ad and the group, saying “I wish this weren’t happening,” and “this race is not going to be decided by outside groups.”

Now comes word that Brown is getting on-the-ground help from U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. King told Radio Iowa that he was going to Massachusetts in order to ensure “this is a legitimate election.” He also intends to attend rallies for Brown and work on the Republican’s behalf.

Politico’s Ben Smith reports that the Brown campaign is less than excited about King showing up to help.

“Rep. King has no formal role in the campaign, and we weren’t even aware he was in Massachusetts,” e-mails the spokeswoman, Tarah Donoghue.

King is exactly the sort of national conservative figure that Brown needs to keep at a distance as he reassures the state’s voters that he’s his own, independent man.

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).

Brown, who in most polls is losing to Democrat Martha Coakley by double digits, is attempting to distance himself from the ad, telling the Associated Press that “I wish this weren’t happening,” and “this race is not going to be decided by outside groups.”

The American Future Fund's leaders played key roles in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004 and the Willie Horton ad in 1988.

Massachusetts’ other senator, John Kerry, also spoke out against the ads, pointing to the fact that among AFF’s leaders are two media consultants who played a key role in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004 that sunk his presidential campaign.

American Future Fund has been mostly quiet in electoral politics since 2008, when it spent more than $4 million on ads in Senate campaigns across the country. Although most of the candidates the group supported were defeated on Election Day, the group quickly declared itself the right’s answer to President Barack Obama’s “fundraising machine.” In 2009, the group launched ads attacking Blue Dog Democrats for their support of health care reform and helped organized and advertise the summer Tea Party protests.

The group’s most recent work has gone towards overturning laws limiting political robo calls in several states.

The company owns and operates two Iowa ethanol plants, in Iowa Falls and Fairbank, and is a subsidiary of Hawkeye Energy Holdings, a company run by Bruce Rastetter.

Rastetter, a native of central Iowa and a long respected mover-and-shaker in Iowa political circles, co-founded Hawkeye Renewables in 2003 and serves as the chief executive of Hawkeye Energy Holdings. Rastetter has spread his wealth throughout a host of political campaigns, but predominantly has supported Republican candidates. Over the years he has been speculated to have his hand in several political ventures, ranging from a potential Republican gubernatorial bid to his personal involvement in the founding of the Iowa Future Fund, a conservative 501(c)(4) organization that morphed into the Iowa Progress Project and shares an organizational history with the American Future Fund.

Hawkeye Energy Holdings is Iowa’s largest ethanol producer and the third largest in the nation. According to Delaware court documents, the chapter 11 filing includes both Hawkeye Renewables LLC and an affiliate, Hawkeye Intermediate LLC., and lists $761 million in secured debt.

Hawkeye Growth, another subsidiary that owns and operates ethanol plants in Menlo and Shell Rock, and Hawkeye Gold, a marketing subsidiary for the ethanol and distillers grains, are not parties in the reorganization.

According to information released by Hawkeye Energy Holdings, all of its plants, including the plants operated by Hawkeye Renewables in Iowa, are buying corn and “fully expect that all corn suppliers will be paid in full under normal terms for current and future contacts.” The two plants that are a party to the reorganization “will continue to meet all sales commitments to their ethanol and distillers grains customers.”

“[T]he ethanol industry was severely affected in 2008 and 2009 by unprecedented commodity price volatility in the market for our products,” Rastetter wrote in a letter to the company’s suppliers. “In recent months, while the market for ethanol has stabilized and Renewables’ financial performance has improved, it nevertheless became clear that Renewables’ debt load was simply too high given the projected operating profile of the industry. We needed to take steps to restructure the unit’s balance sheet in order to make Renewables more competitive in the future.”

Rastetter assured suppliers that “upon the completion of its restructuring, Renewables will have one of the industry’s strongest balance sheets and very little debt.” Details of the reorganization, according to Rastetter, was pre-approved by a majority of the company’s first lien debt holders.

The two Iowa plants listed in the filing have a combined production of 225 million gallons of ethanol, and employ roughly 100 workers. Listed in court documents is $593.4 million in primary debt and $167.6 million in secondary debt.

Hawkeye Energy Holdings, which is not a direct part of the bankruptcy protection, was formed after the sale of a majority interest in Renewables to Boston-based Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P. in 2006. Rastetter no longer serves as chief executive of Heartland Pork Enterprises, having guided its acquisition by Christensen Farms in 2004. Summit Farms, a diverse farming operation located in northern Iowa, is still owned by Rastetter, but is not impacted by the chapter 11 filing.

Roxanne Conlin, a Des Moines attorney and a Democrat running for U.S. senate.

The attorney’s fees, which a Polk County judge set at $75 million, returned to the headlines Tuesday when Gov. Chet Culver and Conlin announced another portion of the settlement — an agreement by Microsoft to provide half of the funds not claimed by consumers to Iowa public schools in the form of technology vouchers.

That amount totaled $60 million.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn called on Conlin, who served as co-lead attorney on the case, to donate a substantial portion of the fees to public schools.

“Roxanne Conlin got filthy rich from this case,” Strawn said, adding: “Meanwhile, Democrats have overspent the state’s resources and forced schools to make massive cuts, likely requiring property tax increases. Instead of ‘passing the buck,’ Democrats like Conlin should donate a million or two of theirs.”

Des Moines-based conservative nonprofit American Future Fund also attacked the attorney’s fees, saying Conlin “lined her pockets with a $75 million commission from the lawsuit.” Schools are facing deep budget cuts, the group said, and the settlement money won’t come close to solving their problems.

“And the truth is Roxanne Conlin profits while Iowa school children suffer,” the group said in a statement.

But the fees were not awarded solely to Conlin. They were set by the presiding judge and went to pay 150 lawyers, law clerks and assistants who worked on the case at four different law firms over the course of the seven years. They also include $7.8 million the law firms spent on the case and a bank loan of $2 million taken out by Conlin. As part of the settlement, attorney’s had to document and justify every dollar spent.

When the settlement was announced in April 2007, legal experts who followed the case said that because of the length and complexity of the trial, along with the difficulty of anti-trust litigation, the $75 million was not out of line.

William Raisch, who teaches antitrust law at Drake University School of Law, told The Des Moines Business Record shortly after the settlement was finalized that in addition to the going hourly rate for lawyers in the community, attorney’s fees also include “time and labor, the novelty of the case, the skill needed to be successful, the undesirability of the case and attorneys’ fees in similar cases.”

A spokesman for Conlin’s campaign said the Des Moines Democrat’s track record speaks for itself.

“Roxanne Conlin has worked her way from poverty to the top of her field nationally,” said spokesman Mark Daley. “Along the way, she wrote the first law of it’s kind protecting victims of rape, helped draft the Violence Against Women Act and obtained $60 million for Iowa schools to secure a brighter future for our kids.”

Conlin is one of three Democrats hoping to unseat U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley in 2010. The others are former state legislators Tom Fiegen of Clarence and Bob Krause of Fairfield.

In addition to his website, Albrecht has acted as communication director of the conservative group American Future Fund for more than a year. He has also served as an adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign and to Chris Rants when he was Iowa House speaker. Rants is also running for governor in 2010.

Albrecht’s wife is communications director for House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen.

Albrecht said TheBeanWalker.com will continue under a new publisher to “maintain the integrity and independence of the site throughout the primary and general elections,” although he did not name who his successor would be.