Santorum, who has already been attacked by anonymous robocalls that called him a “pro-life fraud,” joined “liberal politicians like Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin in voting against S. 1788 (National Right to Work Act) on the floor of the U.S. Senate,” the flier said.

Santorum was also lumped together with prominent state Democrats like Gov. Chet Culver, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, calling them all “big labor cronies.”

Right to Work laws prohibit agreements between unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or “fees” a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Former state Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines (file photo).

“I’m doing the Democratic Party a favor,” he said in an interview with The Iowa Independent. “Gov. Culver is going to lose, that is becoming more and more clear.”

Fallon said that while most people he’s talked to feel the same way about Culver, they are worried about the political risk of challenging a sitting governor. But he’s still hopeful he will find the right candidate.

“I’ve asked several people, and some haven’t said ‘no,’” Fallon said. He would not specifically name those he has asked or anyone who has shown interest, but he did point to Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie and former Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey as the type of candidate he would like to see run.

“I think someone with elected experience but who is a fresh face in Iowa politics,” he said. “Someone who is willing to advance a progressive, populist agenda.”

Both Cownie and Bailey could not be reached for comment.

Recent polls have shown Culver losing to former Republican Gov. Terry Branstad by 15 percentage points or more. Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, another GOP gubernatorial hopeful, bests Culver in the polls as well, but by a much smaller margin.

“His unpopularity is partially a reflection of a bad economy,” Fallon said. “But to think that’s the only reason is to walk with blinders on.”

Culver has managed to alienate his base, Fallon said, and without the base no Democrat can win this fall. The critique is nothing new.

Culver’s approval is at an all-time low overall, and among Democrats it has fallen to 57 percent in the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, down from 72 percent in the September. Only 37 percent of Iowans in labor union households approve of Culver’s performance in office.

In 2008, the governor angered labor unions after he vetoed a bill expanding collective bargaining rights for public-sector employees. At the time, labor leaders called the move an “out-and-out betrayal.” Unions contributed heavily to Culver’s 2006 gubernatorial victory. Since the veto, the governor has managed to patch things up with organized labor, at least publicly, although some resentment remains.

Also in 2008, Culver said if the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling and legalized same-sex marriage he would be willing to call legislators into special session to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman.”

Following the court’s April ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Culver said that since the ruling did not require churches recognize the marriages he would not seek to overturn it with a constitutional amendment.

The governor’s actions following the historic floods of 2008 have angered some in Linn County, a long-time Democratic stronghold. Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman wrote last week that in eastern Iowa “Culver’s stock has been declining since autumn 2008,” pointing to the governor’s refusal to call a special session to deal with flood recovery, instead assuring residents that he had the authority to deal with the situation without lawmakers.

“When he could have sent a strong signal that the flood was worthy of a statewide, all-hands-on-deck response, he played it cautious,” Dorman wrote. “Rather than rally consensus, Culver flew solo. Unfortunately, it’s been a persistent theme of his tenure — whether it’s dealing with budget problems or taking days to react to a court ruling. Hesitation and isolation.”

IDP Chairman Michael Kiernan

Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Michael Kiernan, who has called Culver’s re-election the party’s top priority in 2010, said in his travels around the state he not heard any Democrats pushing for someone to challenge the governor.

“Everyone, not just our party’s base, is concerned,” Kiernan said. “There is a lot of anxiety and fear about the economy.”

These are not the best of times, he said, but they will get better. And Culver’s approval ratings will also get better once the governor has the opportunity to hit the campaign trail.

“Right now he’s busy being governor,” Kiernan said, adding: “Unfortunately, these are times when tough decisions have to be made, but the governor is doing what he has to do to move the state forward.”

Fallon ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2006, coming in third behind Culver and former U.S. Rep. Mike Blouin in the Democratic primary. He also challenged incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell in 2008 for the 3rd District congressional seat, losing by nearly 20 points after an ugly campaign.

This is also not the first time Fallon has publicly criticized Culver. In an Op-Ed published last July, Fallon said the public has grown frustrated with Culver due to “little to no progress on key front-and-center concerns such as climate change, labor law, campaign finance and the regulation of corporate hog confinements, to name a few.”

Despite his political experience and his issues with the Culver administration, Fallon said he is not interested in running for governor again.

“There are much better people out there who should run,” he said. “I think we’ll find someone.”

That said, if he can’t find a credible opponent, Fallon will not help Culver win re-election this fall.

“I’m not going to waste my time with Chet Culver,” he said. “He’s never taken his base very seriously.”

Kiernan said it appears as though Fallon’s anger toward the governor is fueled, at least in part, because he was not able to secure a job in the Culver administration. Similar accusations were made by the governor’s staff last year. Fallon has repeatedly denied those claims.

“So, is this about what’s best for the party, or is this personal?” Kiernan said.

Liberal blogger John Deeth points out that even though Culver’s approval ratings are dismal, previous gubernatorial campaigns have seen poll numbers change dramatically, pointing to Democrat Bonnie Campbell’s 19 point lead over Branstad in 1994 and Republican Jim Ross Lightfoot’s similar lead over Tom Vilsack in 1998. Both went on to lose in November.

Besides, Deeth writes, Fallon’s efforts may be too little, too late.

“But despite Fallon’s plea, it’s really too late to launch a credible primary challenge to a sitting governor,” he said. “The Dems’ best bet is to dance with the date they picked four years ago.”

Former Des Moines School Board member Jonathan Narcisse has already declared he will run for governor but has not decided yet if it will be as a Democrat or an independent.

“I understand that a party that alleges to support workers and advance the middle class uses the labor movement as an ATM, as a source of free campaign workers, as a strong back to carry them to victory, and a perceived weak mind that would not notice the huge disparity between promises and deliveries,” said Sagar, who is also treasurer of the Iowa Democratic Party. “Suffice to say, we have noticed.”

Democrats gained control of both chambers of the Iowa legislature and the governor’s mansion in 2006, and labor played a big role in getting them there. Despite this fact — and despite labor helping Democrats expand their margins in both chambers in 2008 — none of organized labor’s four main legislative priorities have managed to become law.

Choice of doctor, prevailing wage, open-scope bargaining and fair share have all stalled over the last four legislative sessions. While the votes are there in the state Senate, in the House a handful of Democrats have blocked the passage of labor’s priorities. And when a bill expanding collective bargaining rights of public employee unions cleared the legislature in 2008 it was vetoed by Gov. Chet Culver.

So far this year, news hasn’t been all bad for organized labor. Culver issued an executive order last month requiring state agencies to consider using project labor agreements for major construction work. And Democrats have re-introduced two labor bills, although in watered down forms.

Sagar, who made headlines last spring for warning Democrats who voted against union legislation that they may face a backlash at the ballot box in 2010, said labor has changed over the years and become more successful at educating voters and helping their friends get elected.

“What we have not changed is the unrealistic reliance on others to live up to their commitments and move progressive legislation forward,” he said. “What we have not changed is our expectations that workers have the same rights as other citizens, or even corporations.”

Workers can no longer let others “tell us what they will do for us, pick the candidates, set the agenda, or otherwise control our destiny,” Sagar said. “There are other ways to get the interests of workers and middle class.”

In the aftermath of the 2009 session, many observers wondered if Iowa Democrats’ failure to move any aspect of labor’s agenda would cause national unions to stop directing resources to the Hawkeye State. The effect would be big for the Iowa Democratic Party. In 2008, AFSCME International donated $346,000 to the political action committee of its Iowa local, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Iowa Council 61. Among other big unions donors were the Service Employees International Union, which donated $125,000 to its local, and the Laborers’ International Union of Illinois, which contributed $200,000 to the Great Plains Laborers’ Council Iowa PAC.

That money helped Democratic candidates and county parties around the state.

The bill, which would require some non-union workers to pay a fee when they receive union services, such as representation during grievances and arbitration, has been pushed for a number of years by organized labor unions. Unlike previous versions of the bill, though, the language in the current Fair Share legislation would apply only to public employees in state government’s executive branch. It would not apply to private businesses, or public unions for teachers, or city or county employees.

Groups like the Iowa Association of Business and Industry have come out fervently in opposition, saying the measure guts Iowa’s Right to Work laws. Earlier this week, the group launched a statewide radio ad campaign attacking the proposal.

Those wishing to speak at the hearing must sign up at the Legislative Information Office (LIO), Room G16, located in the Iowa State Capitol, or call  515-281-5129. If unable to attend, e-mail testimony can be submitted at lioinfo@legis.state.ia.us

The ad specifically points to so-called “Fair Share” legislation, which would require some non-union workers to pay a fee when they receive union services, such as representation during grievances and arbitration. The group accuses Gov. Chet Culver and Democrats in the legislature of “auctioning off” Iowans’ jobs to labor unions and forcing workers to “pay the union, even if they’re not a member.”

Unlike previous versions of the bill, the language in the current Fair Share legislation would apply only to public employees in state government’s executive branch. It would not apply to private businesses, or public unions for teachers, or city or county employees.

The proposal would give Iowa’s executive-branch public employees the right to negotiate on whether non-union members should reimburse unions for bargaining and grievance services, limiting those costs to 65 percent of annual union dues, depending upon the service provided by the union.

Below is the ad purchased by ABI:

House Study Bill 699, better known as prevailing wage, is scheduled to go before an Iowa House subcommittee at noon and then the full Labor Committee at 3:30 p.m. The bill is similar to one that failed to pass last year despite House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, keeping the chamber in session throughout a weekend and voting machines open for nearly 70 hours in order to attempt to persuade a “no” vote to change their mind.

House Labor Committee Chairman Rick Olson, D-Des Moines, said he has drafted a compromise bill that could be easier to pass this year. It would allow cities, counties and school districts to opt-out of paying prevailing wage on a project-by-project basis. Republicans have vowed to oppose the legislation.

The legislation, which would set minimum pay and benefit standards for workers of public projects, failed to gain passage in 2009 despite House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, keeping the chamber in session throughout a weekend and voting machines open for nearly 70 hours in order to attempt to persuade a “no” vote to change their mind.

Culver told the Gazette legislators should “push forward” on the bill. House Labor Committee Chairman Rick Olson, D-Des Moines, said he has drafted a compromise bill that could be easier to pass this year.

“It’s what you might call a softer bill,” Olson said, explaining it would require the state, regents and community colleges to pay prevailing wage on projects of $100,000 or more. However, local government – cities, counties and school districts – could opt-out of paying prevailing wage on a project-by-project basis, Olson said.

The changes were made to appeal to the “six pack” of conservative Democrats who typically do not support labor legislation — Reps. McKinley Bailey, Geri Huser, Doris Kelley, Larry Marek, Dolores Mertz and Brian Quirk. Democrats hold a 56-44 majority in the House, meaning at least one of the six has to be persuaded to support labor measures in order to win passage.

The legislation would take direct aim at workplace union elections, which has been a key area of concern for organized labor.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and admits that, despite work over the past year on the bill, its future remains uncertain.

“Well, it is still under consideration,” Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. “We’ve been working all last year to try to reach some agreement on a modified version of it that would be acceptable. I think we came pretty close to that, but now with this vote in Massachusetts … we just don’t know.”

The proposed bill would require organizers to gather signatures on union cards, and unionization of a workplace would occur when and if the necessary number of signatures had been reached. Those who advocate for the change note that the existing balloting process allows opportunity for company leaders, who are often against organized labor, to apply undue pressure on workers who have petitioned for the vote to commence. By keeping the process open and transparent through card signatures, organizers believe the opportunity to influence the actual election outcome will be reduced.

Those who oppose the change argue that by not having a balloting process, union organizers will be given an upper hand in the process and also that workers should be able to indicate their choice privately on an unsigned ballot.

The issue has become one of survival for organized labor, which saw overall membership fall an additional 12.3 percent in 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the private sector alone, membership dipped 10 percent. The issue is key for Democrats not only because of their long-touted support of working class Americans, but also because they receive significant campaign funding and election support from unions and their membership.

Harkin is not yet willing to say exactly how such reforms garnered through bipartisan compromise might look, but he is adamant that the process governing unionizing needs to be addressed and changed.

“Let me put it this way, something has to be done to change the laws regarding the way we conduct union elections, how they are conducted. We’re looking at some proposals to do that. While it may not be card check as we know it, it will definitely be a change in the way we conduct elections,” he said.

When asked if such a compromise could be struck this year, Harkin wasn’t overly optimistic.

“[It's] possible that sometime this spring, before summer, we may see something like that — but it’s just a possibility. I’m not sure,” he said.

Normally, the session would run 100 days, but budget constraints forced lawmakers to shorten the session, saving an estimated $40,000 a day.

The Des Moines Register does a good job of sorting through the various extraneous issues facing the legislature this year, ranging from raising the fines for speeding tickets to cracking down on puppy mills.

The Associated Press focused exclusively on how lawmakers plan to fix the budget, with Radio Iowa discussing state government reorganization.

The Iowa Independent also weighed in on the issues facing the 2010 General Assembly, including the role of organized labor, how budget decisions may shortchange the state’s most vulnerable and conservatives conceding that same-sex marriage won’t be an issue this year.

And making it all more complicated, this year’s session takes place in the shadow of the 2010 election, with all 100 House members, 25 senators and Gov. Chet Culver up for re-election.

The comparison, though, isn’t as clear cut as Cillizza would like to believe.

From Cillizza’s blog:

Chet Culver/Ted Strickland: A cold chill almost certainly went down the spines of the governors of Iowa and Ohio when they heard about Ritter’s retirement. Both Culver, in Iowa, and Strickland, in Ohio, find themselves in positions similar to Ritter — once considered unbeatable they have seen their state’s faltering economies (and their responses to it) erode their popular support. Do one or both men reconsider their re-election plans as a result?

For starters, I can’t remember Culver ever being considered “unbeatable,” but his popularity has certainly taken a nose dive over the course of the last year, with the Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll finding the first-term Democrat with a 40 percent approval rating in November.

The comparison to Ritter goes deeper than just plummeting approval ratings. Both have also had a prickly relationship with organized labor, traditionally considered the base of the Democratic Party.  Culver drew labor’s ire when he vetoed an expansion of collective bargaining rights back in 2008, and in 2007 Ritter struck down a bill making it easier for workers to form unions.

But where Culver has made some efforts to repair his relationship with labor, namely coming out strongly in support of prevailing wage legislation during the 2009 General Assembly (even though he spoke out after the bill was considered dead), Ritter vetoed two more labor-backed bills during 2009. Those vetoes resulted in union members protesting the governor with signs asking, “Why does Ritter hate working families?”

The other big difference is the Republican opposition. Ritter knew who his likely Republican opponent was going to be, as former Colorado Congressman Scott McInnis had emerged as the clear front runner. For Culver, Republicans are looking at a contentious primary that as of now has four potential candidates. While he is losing to two of the four candidates in recent polls, the uncertainty of who he will face off with in November (and how damaged that candidate is after a bloody primary) will likely keep him in the race.

Iowa is also a more hospitable climate for Culver than Colorado was for Ritter. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in Iowa by more than 100,000 voters. In Colorado, the parties are nearly even in registered voters.

So, while Culver is certainly in danger, the likelihood that he will retire instead of seeking re-election is incredibly remote.