In a letter to their Republican counterparts, House Speaker Pat Murphy of Dubuque and Senate President Jack Kibbie of Emmetsburg said with the attorney general and auditor already conducting an investigation, there is no reason for the matter to go before the Legislative Oversight Committee.

“At this time, however, we believe that it would be imprudent for the Oversight Committee to bring officials from the Department of Economic Development/Film Office, state auditor’s office, attorney general’s office or Department of Revenue before the committee because it could impede or interrupt this joint investigation,” the letter said. “We are especially concerned about the effect of such testimony on any potential criminal proceedings in light of Chief Deputy Auditor Warren Jenkins’s statement that criminal charges against some individuals are possible.”

Jenkins told the Iowa Independent that any time the auditor’s office conducts an investigation that criminal charges are possible, although the likelihood of that happening in this investigation is small.

Murphy and Kibbie were responding to a request by Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen requesting the Oversight Committee look into the film credit allegations when the meet on Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Rich Olive of Story City, who chairs the Oversight Committee, said Tuesday that the committee would discuss the issue Thursday, saying the investigation could expand to all the state’s tax credit programs.

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.

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 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)

Despite a poor economy, groups spent nearly $41,000 more in 2009 than they did in 2008. In fact, this year has seen the most  spending on legislative receptions since 2005, according the the IECDB.

“These reports show that the political economy in Iowa remains robust,” said Charlie Smithson, the IECDB’s executive director.

Reports were filed for 90 receptions held during the session. Reports disclose the amount spent on food, beverage and entertainment regardless of the number of people who attend. Because every legislator is invited to attend, the parties are not subject to the state’s gift law, which prohibits gifts to government officials of more than $3.

Below are the top 10 parties by amount spent during the 2009 legislative session.

1. Iowa Association of Realtors — $16,813 (held March 24)
2. Iowa Farm Bureau Federation — $15,807 (held Feb. 24)
3. Greater Des Moines Partnership — $10,405 (held Jan. 12)
4. Iowa Wholesale Beer Distributors Association — $9,913 (held Jan. 20)
5. Iowa Credit Union League — $9,105 (held Feb. 17)
6. Des Moines University — $8,629 (held Feb. 4)
7. Iowa Bankers Association — $8,449 (held Feb. 11)
8. Iowa Health Care Association — $7,958 (held March 31)
9. Central Iowa Power Cooperative — $7,949 (held March 26)
10. Iowa Business Council — $7,453 (held Jan. 26)

The complaint was filed by former Democratic state Rep. Ed Fallon and his wife, Lynn. Bartz used the resources of the Senate Republican caucus to ask county officials not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same gender in defiance of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. To date no same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied a license.

In dismissing the complaint, the committee concluded Bartz was simply exercising his right to free speech.

The complaint, filed by former state Rep. Ed Fallon and his wife Lynn, alleges Bartz used his office and public resources to encourage other elected officials to disobey state law.

Bartz used the Web site of the Republican Party’s Senate caucus to urge opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in direct defiance of an Iowa Supreme Court decision. Attorney General Tom Miller instructed county recorders that doing so would be illegal, and to date no same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied a license.

Ben Stone, executive director of Iowa ACLU, said the ethics complaint is a threat to Bartz’s free speech.

The ethics committee, which is chaired by Senate President Jack Kibbie, will convene Tuesday at noon at the Iowa Capitol.

Bartz has begun a petition drive asking opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage and deny marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. The court’s ruling goes into effect Monday.

“For a state senator to use his office and public resources to encourage other elected officials to disobey a unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court is unconscionable, and possibly a violation of state law,” Fallon said.

The complaint has been filed with the Senate Ethics Committee inquiring as to whether Bartz’s actions constitute a violation of his oath of office.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has already warned county recorders that refusal to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples would be a violation of the law and could result in being removed from office. Asked by The Des Moines Register if he was asking county recorders to engage in acts of civil disobediance, Bartz replied “I have to decide whether or not it’s civil disobedience. If you look at the code book, it hasn’t changed.”

In a statement to the Iowa Independent, Bartz said the petition drive is simply a way for Iowans to have their voices heard on the issue.

“They should have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, affirming the state law Defense of Marriage Act,” he said. “We have tried in the Senate on four occasions to let the voices of Iowans be heard on this issue and have been denied the opportunity all four times by obstructionist Democrats. This petition is a way for Iowans to finally let their voice be heard on this monumental issue.”

Ultimately, county recorders do not have the authority to decide whether to follow the court’s ruling, Miller said. The court’s ruling concluded that language “limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the [state] statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”