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

Latham’s PAC, called For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC), raised $205,447 during the two-year campaign cycle that led up to the 2008 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that total, nearly $52,000 was spent for trips advertised as fundraisers, mostly to well-known golf courses in California. The money paid for travel, hotel accommodations, meals and golf course fees.

That total represents only expenses associated with out-of-state travel and does not include fees paid to fundraising consultants or fundraisers held in the Washington, D.C., area. It also does not include other charges related to the trips, such as a $1,775 payment in August 2008 to Los Angeles-based Summit Limousine for transportation to a fundraising event.

When those expenses are factored in, the PAC spent $80,165 on entertainment and other fundraising costs, or nearly 40 percent of all money raised.

The PAC spent a little more than $70,000 on direct contributions to Republican candidates around the country, a practice that is supposed to be the main focus of these types of organizations, called “leadership PACs.”

Election reform advocates are highly critical of leadership PACs, saying they amount to little more than political slush funds designed to allow elected officials to skirt campaign finance laws. Two trips this year by Latham — a weekend in Atlantic City, N.J., and a golf outing at the prestigious Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia — have already drawn criticism.

Below is a list of expenses associated with out of state travel during the 2008 election cycle.

Trips taken in 2007 (dates reflect when payment was issued):

Boca Raton Resort in Boca Raton, Fla., in February

La Quinta Resort & Club in La Quinta, Calif., in February

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif., in February

Boca Raton Resort in Boca Raton, Fla., in March

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club in Del Mar, Calif., in May

Averills Lodge at Whitefish in Montana in August

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif., in August

Embassy Suites Omaha in August

Caves Valley Golf Club in Owings Mills, Md., in December

Trips made during 2008:

LaQuinta Resort & Club in La Quinta, Calif., in January

The Cliffs Hotel in Shell Beach, Calif., in June

Del Mar Racetrack in Del Mar, Calif., in August

Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs. W.V. in September

Hilton Hotel in Minneapolis, Minn., in September

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif in September

Disney Resort Grand Lake in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., in November

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.

He is also facing criticism for once again defending the debunked urban legend that a provision in a health care reform bill currently in the U.S. House would give the government authority to euthanize the elderly.

Last month, a fundraising letter Grassley sent to supporters found its way to the blog of Washington Post writer Ezra Klein. In it, Grassley made it clear to potential donors that he is strongly opposed to health care reform legislation, despite public statements where he promises to work for a bipartisan bill.

Over the weekend, the liberal blog ThinkProgress.org reported from a fundraising event for Grassley in Miami that once again calls into question the senator’s commitment to crafting health care reform legislation.

As we previously reported, ThinkProgress attended a closed-door health care town hall forum in Hialeah, Fla., this past Tuesday, where Sens. Mel Martinez (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) discussed their opposition to Obama’s health reform plan. After the event, the three senators took a trip across town to the ritzy Biltmore hotel in Miami where they attended a fundraising reception sponsored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

ThinkProgress attended the closed-door reception. Upon arriving at the venue, we were surprised to see a conference room that was marked as a fundraising reception room for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Grassley was not listed on the official invitation. Minutes later, Grassley arrived, where he joined his fellow colleagues McConnell and McCain. In his remarks, Grassley told the wealthy Republican activists that he was committed to fighting Obama’s health care plan.

Tom Fiegen, a Cedar Rapids bankruptcy attorney and one of two Democrats hoping to challenge Grassley in 2010, condemned the “secret fundraiser” and called on the senator to come clean on his position on health care reform.

“Will the real Chuck Grassley stand up?” Fiegen said, later adding: “What good are Mr. Grassley’s town meetings in Iowa when he’s telling Iowans one thing and telling something else to the big-money contributors from out of state?”

Tuesday morning Grassley was a guest on C-SPAN. He was asked about the infamous “pull the plug on grandma” line he delivered several times during town hall forums around the state. Grassley said if you “connect several dots” and read between the lines that it is fair to conclude that “the government is going to be in the middle of end of life issues just like they are in England.”

On the issue of “death panels,” Grassley has both defended and walked back his original claims in recent weeks. When he began being criticized for the statements, Grassley at first defended them, using an argument similar to what he used on C-SPAN, that end-of-life counseling should be feared due to the likelihood that health care will be rationed.

By mid-August, a Grassley spokesman told the Washington Post that despite statements to the contrary, the senator “does not think the House provision would in fact give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die.”

By the end of August, Grassley was both disavowing the rumor and continuing to spread it at a town hall forum in Pocahontas.

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.

One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa filed the complaint Monday alleging that NOM, a New Jersey-based group that opposes same-sex marriage, violated Iowa campaign finance law in their Iowa House District 90 campaign.

“NOM has complete disregard of Iowa law as they engage in express advocacy in our state, while refusing to release the identity of their donors, as is legally required in Iowa law,” the complaint said. “NOM has a history of funneling secret money throughout the country to engage in similar activity.”

On Aug. 20, NOM reported making an independent expenditure of $86,060 to benefit Stephen Burgmeier, a candidate in Tuesday’s Iowa House District 90 special election. The complaint alleges the expenditure violates Iowa election laws requiring disclosure of political contributors. Similar complaints have been filed against NOM in California and Maine.

The Iowa complaint comes less than a week after Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, wrote a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown saying that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

“We request a thorough investigation into their activities, including detailed accounting of any and all contributions and their sources, as Iowans clearly deserve to know who is funding last minute advertising to try and influence tomorrow’s election,” the complaint said.

NOM has said it will target target Iowa in the hopes of passing a state constitutional amendment reversing the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in April that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The effort, called “The Reclaim Iowa Project,” leads many to believe the $90,000 spent on HD90 represents just a preview of the group’s future investment in Iowa politics.

In Maine, the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices said in a letter to NOM that it will investigating their campaign practices at its Oct. 1 meeting. The group is trying to build support for a referendum to overturn a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage.

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.

Charlie Smithson, executive director of the IECDB, said his staff has informed him that Huck PAC did not file the Verified Statement of Registration (VSR) with his office within 15 days of making the $2,500 contribution to Team Vander Plaats. Filing a VSR is required if an out-of-state or federal committee makes a contribution in excess of $50 to an Iowa committee.

“Notice was sent to the PAC today concerning the alleged failure to file,” Smithson said. “Pursuant to Ethics Board rule 351-4.59(6) the PAC will be assessed a $25 fine. If the report is not filed within the next 10 days additional sanctions may be imposed.”

Those sanctions could include a letter of reprimand, an additional fine of up to $2,000 or a referral for criminal prosecution, although Smithson said these types of situations rarely escalate to this level of punishment.

The last disclosure form filed by Huck PAC with the IECDB was in July 2008.

A spokesman for Huck PAC did not respond to a request for comment by the Iowa Independent.

UPDATE at 4:30 p.m. — David John, deputy director for Huck PAC, has confirmed that the disclosure violation was the result of a “small oversight by our accounting firm, which has since been corrected.” The form has now been turned in, John said.

Burt was arrested Feb. 11 in Ankeny after a night of drinking that began at 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.

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. The IPA only filed disclosure reports for the February event Wednesday, after reporters began asking questions.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a Des Moines-based activist organization, said while the media and political observers focus on Burt’s bad behavior, the real scandal is Iowa’s lax disclosure laws.

“This lack of disclosure and transparency is clear proof that the state of Iowa needs comprehensive campaign finance reform and clean election laws to restore the credibility of our electoral process, including campaign contribution limits and public financing of elections,” said Iowa CCI Board President Barb Kalbach.

In 2005, state lawmakers voted to strip oversight powers from the nonpartisan Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, giving the power instead to the state House and Senate ethics committees. Iowa CCI believes the direct result is a downturn in reports being filed.

There were 117 “Session Function” reports filed in 2005. That number dropped to 101 in 2006 and 104 in 2007. By this year, only 90 reports were filed concerning lobbyist-sponsored functions held during the legislative session where all lawmakers were invited.The total amount of money spent during the session on these receptions went down each of the last three years, until 2009, when it jumped from $194,848 to $235,828.

Allowing legislators to have control over parties designed to lobby them is a recipe for disaster, CCI contends.

“What other profession in the state is allowed to regulate themselves?” said Ed Rethman, Iowa CCI member from West Des Moines.  “Are doctors allowed to license themselves?”

Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, said before the law was changed, disclosure reports were filed directly with his office. Smithson’s staff would also check the social calendar and call groups to make sure reports were filed on time.

When the law was changed, reports were filed directly with the legislative committees.

“When I became a secondary repository and oversight responsibilities were with the House/Senate Ethics Committees we discontinued our processes of ensuring the filing of reports as we no longer had enforcement jurisdiction,” he said.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa PAC came in second, raising $187,851, and the Credit Union PAC came in third with $100,933.

As for cash on hand, the Service Employees International Union Political Education and Action Iowa Fund was out front with $252,511. However, the union hasn’t raised or spent any money in 2009.

Associated General Contractors of Iowa PAC was next up with $248,511 cash on hand, and the Free and Strong America PAC-Iowa, organized by potential 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has $203,380. The Iowa State Education Association PAC has $196,107.

For a full listing, go to the IECDB Web site.

The problem, critics say, is that Grassley recently backed those industries in his opposition to legislation allowing judges to renegotiate mortgages.

File photo: Sen Charles Grassley. (Lauren Victoria Burke/wdcpix.com)

“The lobbyists and PAC hosting this event have made it clear that they will continue to fight against the types of financial market reforms now under discussion in Washington,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund. “In the weeks to come, will Sen. Grassley again listen to them and their campaign money, or to constituents back home who are hurting because of the failures of Wall Street, the banks, regulators, and Congress?”

In April, Grassley fought against legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages as part of bankruptcy proceedings, a procedure known as “cramdown.” The Mortgage Bankers Association led the successful charge against the legislation, which led sponsoring Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to say of the banks “frankly they own the place.”

Now, critics say the industries who benefited from Grassley’s opposition are thanking him with campaign cash.

Donations ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 per person to Grassley’s re-election committee were required for attendance. According to research by Public Campaign, the event was organized by key members of the mortgage and private equity industries, including Pace Bradshaw of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America; Smith W. “Smitty” Davis, head of the financial institutions policy practice of lobbying firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; Suzanne Hutchinson, executive vice president and a registered lobbyist for the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; and the political action committee of Aflac Insurance.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Grassley has raised nearly $2.8 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector over his career for his campaign and leadership political action committee.

(h/t Huffington Post)