facebook.com/iowahousedemocrats/
Excited to offer Legislative website training again! Have you ever wondered how to track a bill through the legislative process, find contact information for your legislators, research who sits on which committees and other information? Sign up to attend the Legislative website training through DMACC. Please email or call to sign up, wcbreckenridge@dmacc.edu/641-521-6714. Open to everyone!
Woodbury County, here is an important message from JD Scholten. No matter what county you live in, please sign up to help at the Iowa caucuses. Click on this link to volunteer: Iowa Democratic Party
Double standard anyone? Watch this positive local news coverage of Joni’s ad “Shot” from 2014. Watch how Joni sings its praises because it gets her so much attention. It sets the stage for Eddie Mauro’s new ad “Cool Under Fire.” Joni of course finds his ad disgusting. Republicans are always the most outraged when you hold up the mirror.
Eddie Mauro is a Democrat running to defeat Joni Ernst for U.S. Senate in 2020. His campaign has released a hard hitting ad, calling out Ernst for glorifying guns and taking $3 million in NRA money while voting against health care coverage for pre-existing conditions and to repeal the ACA. The Mauro campaign ad embedded parts of one of Joni’s ads from 2014, “Shot.” I remember it well.
After the Mauro ad hit the airwaves, a visibly rattled Joni went on Fox News and attempted to act appalled but only succeeded in looking hysterically afraid she may not get re-elected. Fox invited Mauro on to discuss the ad and there is no doubt he won the exchange by speaking in a straightforward and heartfelt manner about what he was thinking of when he made the ad, specifically, what it’s like to be a parent, teacher or school kid these days living with daily fear of getting shot and pointing out Ernst’s dishonesty and hypocrisy on gun violence. The videos below are Mauro’s ad and an abbreviated version of his appearance on Fox News. Be sure to watch the entire Fox News segment here.
Joni Ernst has no business complaining about this ad because it is basically her ad. And while she used guns in her ad to thumb her nose at anyone who doesn’t love guns, Mauro’s message was one of putting an end to gun violence.
Here is the Fox News segment showing Ernst trying to defend herself by distorting the facts and attacking Mauro and then Mauro responding. Mauro did an outstanding job of handling the bungling anchor and impressively refused to shut up like most people do when the Fox guy attempted to talk over him. To view the longer version showing Joni trying to attack Mauro the previous day and Mauro making both of them look like idiots, follow this link to the entire Fox segment. Mauro didn’t just defend his ad, he turned it back on Joni and capitalized on the opportunity to get his message out about what a terrible thing gun violence is and how hypocritical Joni is, and in the process he made them pay for trying this.
Click here to visit Mauro’s campaign website. Follow on FB Twitter Instagram YouTube
Action alert from Ed Fallon:
CALLING ALL PIPELINE OPPONENTS! WRITE TO THE IUB!
We need as many pipeline opponents as possible to write to the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) and ask the board to stand strong against the aggressive tactics of Dakota Access. The pipeline company has been pushing officials in Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota, and North Dakota to double the amount of oil flowing through the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). We can and must stop them.
CLICK HERE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SEND A LETTER TO THE IUB. You’ll notice that sending a letter is called “submit a filing” on the IUB website. You can submit a filing as a registered user (right side of the screen) or as a guest (left side of the screen, under the red letters).
There are many reasons why this is a dangerous and unjust proposal. Here are a handful. Pick one or two points to focus on, and send a copy of your letter to me at ed@boldiowa.com.
— Dakota Access claims that doubling the flow of oil “will not prejudice the substantial legal rights of any person (paragraph 8 of Request for Waiver).” The company argues that, because no additional land will be taken forcibly through eminent domain, no one will be negatively affected. This completely ignores both the impact of an oil spill and the terrible impact on our climate.
— Oil Change International estimated that the current flow of 570,000 barrels of oil per day through DAPL is equal to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from 30 coal-fired power plants (click here to learn more). Doubling the oil means another huge increase in GHG emissions — at a time when scientists warn of the urgency to reduce emissions immediately.
— In approving the original permit for DAPL, the IUB only marginally considered the pipeline’s impact on climate change. With news out this past week that nine key climate tipping points have become active far earlier than scientists originally predicted, it’s imperative that the IUB weigh climate change as part of its deliberation. (Click here for the Guardian story.)
— In paragraph 7 of its Request for Waiver, Dakota Access argues that the expansion of DAPL is “being made in response to demand for domestically-produced crude oil … in order to satisfy that demand and deliver the benefits to all Americans (emphasis added).” Perhaps Dakota Access is hoping that the IUB (and the rest of us) won’t notice that the US just became a net exporter of oil. This expansion isn’t for domestic consumption. It’s for export, and to allow wealthy oil and gas tycoons to get even richer.
— In its Request for Waiver (paragraph 4), Dakota Access asks the IUB to exempt it from the requirement to hold a public hearing. It is a bit comical that Dakota Access claims that holding a hearing “causes undue hardship.”
— In its September 6, 2019 order, the IUB requires Dakota Access to “provide expert testimony of … the effect adding the additive [DRA, or drag reducing agent] to the oil will have on the longevity of the pipeline components and whether the additive will increase the risk of a spill or other incident on the pipeline.” In Dakota Access’ November 27 response, it essentially claims that DRA is safe and presents no problem. But the IUB didn’t ask Dakota Access for its opinion. It ordered Dakota Access to “provide expert testimony,” i.e., analysis of the safety of DRA by an expert unassociated with Dakota Access. Dakota Access is conveniently overlooking this blatant conflict of interest.
— Similarly, in its September 6, 2019 order, the IUB also required Dakota Access to “provide expert testimony of whether the increased flow will increase the amount of oil that will be released if a spill occurs.” Again, Dakota Access responds without providing any expert testimony beyond its own biased opinion.
— You can also point out to members of the IUB that ten presidential candidates have weighed in with statements opposing DAPL’s expansion. Here’s the link to our press release cataloguing those statements.
Thank you! – Ed Fallon
U.S. Senate Candidate Theresa Greenfield, Walker Homestead, Johnson County, Iowa. July 14, 2019
Theresa Greenfield is a Democrat running for U.S. Senate and appears ahead in the money game.
She got positive press after third quarter fundraising numbers were released. She raised $1.1 million in Q3 compared to Joni Ernst who raised less than $1 million. Ernst had $4 million on hand.
Greenfield was bullish, saying to The Hill, “It’s clear that the momentum and energy is on our side to flip this Senate seat, and I’m so proud of what our grassroots campaign has already been able to accomplish to lay the groundwork to win this race next year.”
Not so fast.
Campaign money is not the only money in the 2020 elections. Greenfield’s campaign eschews donations from corporate political action committees and secured 92 percent of donations at $100 or less. These are positive things. Even so, millions of dollars will be spent on this election by both major parties, political action committees, and others. Not all of it will be from donations that meet a candidate’s criteria, because legally, the campaign can’t coordinate activities with outside groups. The Democrat will benefit from big money spending regardless of how donations to their campaigns are filtered. A significant source of money, the DSCC, has backed Theresa Greenfield to take on Ernst. There will be others.
Underlying the last paragraph is a notion that in 2020 the Iowa U.S. Senate election will be a fair fight. It won’t. Brian Slodyko of Associated Press posted a story yesterday titled “‘Dark money’ ties raise questions for GOP Sen. Ernst of Iowa.” The author opens,
An outside group founded by top political aides to Sen. Joni Ernst has worked closely with the Iowa Republican to raise money and boost her reelection prospects, a degree of overlap that potentially violates the law, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.
As we’ve seen in the results of the Russia and Ukraine investigations of the president and his campaigns, Republicans appear to be a lawless bunch. Ernst has repeatedly demonstrated there is little daylight between the president and her. What you see is what you get.
After hearing three Democratic senate candidates speak at Iowa events and taking a phone call from a fourth, I found each to have positive qualities. In this race money matters as much as any other aspect of a campaign. Sure we’d like to overturn Citizen’s United in an effort to take money out of politics. Public financing of campaigns might also be good. Democrats have to win elections under the current rules before there is an opportunity to change campaign financing laws. Or we could break the law as Ernst and her cadre of close supporters may have done. Democrats have become the party of law and order and I don’t see Greenfield or the others breaking the law.
We want and need to flip the U.S. Senate to a Democratic majority so if our presidential candidate wins, they have a chance to govern. Republicans want to hold this seat for similar reasons. With 33 U.S. Senate seats on the ballot, there are enough to flip control, but only so many competitive races in which big money could make a difference. The Iowa seat is one of them.
Each of the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate has asserted they are best to unseat Joni Ernst. Which is accurate? Answering this question assumes playing by rules of logic that simply aren’t being used by Republican and right wing Ernst supporters.
A winning quarter of fundraising may not be enough to stand down the challenges of the influence of third party money in our elections. It is a positive start, but only part of the picture.
“Dave questioned FCC Commissioners about his Broadband DATA Act to improve the collection of data to ensure broadband gets to where it is needed, including rural areas. He also discussed the Precision Ag Act that was signed into law as part of the Farm Bill and how high speed broadband is needed to make sure our farmers can use all the technology available to them.”
Tired of cable news? Follow Free Speech TV
Here’s a note from John Deeth, caucus organizer, JC Dems
As you all know caucus season is fast approaching. The Johnson County Democrats and Republicans have been working together for several months to schedule locations, and we are moving on to the last stages of planning for February 3rd.
(Disclaimer: Most of you know I work in the auditor’s office. The caucuses are a party meeting, not an election, and the auditor doesn’t run them. I just so happen to be volunteering my own time on this. It’s pretty much just like work except instead of getting paid, I burn my vacation days.)
Because Democrats in Johnson County are serious about doing their civic duty, we expect extremely high attendance in our county, the highest per capita in the state. That means a lot of enthusiasm, plus long lines, crowded rooms, and overflowing parking lots.
We would appreciate help in getting the word out and setting public expectation for what caucus night in Johnson County will be like, and we hope to promote this during December.
We also want to promote early voter registration. People CAN change address and party on caucus night, but the process will go faster if they update their registration before the end of the calendar year. After that point, both parties will print their caucus night lists, and anyone re-registering during January is going to be asked to re-register again at the caucus. This will slow up the line.
I am available to discuss this and any other caucus issues, and so is our chair Ed Cranston. Additional contact info is available on request. Thanks and we hope to talk soon.
John Deeth, caucus organizer, Johnson County Democrats
johndeethiowacity@gmail.com
cranstoned@gmail.com
Protect Kids Not Guns
by Ralph Scharnau
The gun control debate continues to roil politics in the United States. The divide between those who favor stricter gun laws and those who don’t revolves around the Second Amendment.
The Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia scripted the Court’s 5-4 majority decision on guns with a controversial ruling that the Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense in the home.
But it is Congress that holds the Constitutional power to organize and arm the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Constitution spells out no specific individual right to firearm ownership.
Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment recognizing gun ownership is not, he contended, “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” He cited prohibitions on the possession of guns by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Firearms in the United States number roughly 315 million, about the same as the nation’s population. Residents usually direct their gunfire at each other, not the state. American history is replete with examples of firearms use and other violent behavior directed at Africans, immigrants, and workers as well as Catholics, Muslims, and certain non-Christians.
Acquiring guns in America is often easier than buying certain over-the-counter pain medicines. Most of the injuries and deaths come when people turn weapons on others they know, relatives, and friends who often live in the same household.
Roughly 34,000 lives are lost to gun violence each year. Generally, Republicans, backed by the National Rifle Association, oppose gun controls. Started as an organization focused on recreational shooting and hunting, the NRA today lobbies against all forms of gun regulations. The NRA has, furthermore, succeeded in persuading some state legislators to expand gun rights in the form of vigilante-style “stand your ground” and “open carry” laws.
The grisly stories of gun violence have stirred debate in Congress and state legislatures over proposals to limit Americans access to firearms. The recent formation of multiracial and inclusive youth-led groups, like Black Lives Matter and Never Again, want stricter gun-control legislation. In addition, women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks support stronger gun laws.
A 2017 survey noted that nearly 40,000 Americans died of gun-related injuries. And 2019 marks a year of shootings in schools, churches, nightclubs, concerts, and malls.
To address this crisis, a number of gun regulations seek to reduce gun violence. These include universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers, including those sold by dealers, on the internet, and at gun shows. Other regulations include registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners, limiting magazine capacity, reinstating the congressional ban on assault weapons, and adopting age limitations for gun use.
The appalling frequency of gun violence poses a public health crisis. Congress should finally fund research into the causes of gun violence. We should also provide support, including mental and physical health care, for survivors of gun violence.
Instituting meaningful gun control measures remains largely unfulfilled. Reducing gun violence saves lives, and represents a moral and humane way to align us with our democratic traditions.
Ralph Scharnau
November 25, 2019
Progress Iowa Report: Ernst refuses to protect domestic violence survivors
Ernst’s VAWA reauthorization attempt allows convicted stalkers to continue gun possession
Des Moines, Iowa — Progress Iowa released a report today, detailing the failure of Senator Joni Ernst to protect domestic violence survivors in Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization. Ernst’s legislation comes months after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a VAWA reauthorization bill in April.
The report discusses the history of the Violence Against Women Act, as well as the current efforts to reauthorize the legislation, which has lapsed for over a year. After a VAWA reauthorization passed in the U.S. House, the Senate began working on a counterpart. Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a version with bipartisan support that closes the so-called boyfriend loophole and includes a number of other provisions backed by advocates and survivors of domestic violence.
Key findings in Progress Iowa’s report include that Ernst’s VAWA reauthorization would allow convicted misdemeanor stalkers to continue gun possession, and it would not prohibit people subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order from gun possession, and it would adversely impact indigenous women and the LGBTQ community.
“If Senator Ernst continues to refuse to support VAWA as passed by the House and supported by Senators from both sides of the aisle, I can only conclude that she is in denial of the terror these crimes inflict even though she has been subjected to it in her own life,” said State Representative Marti Anderson of Des Moines. “These crimes strike horrific fear in women and children who are targeted. Senator Ernst’s failure to do everything the can to stop this insidious violence gives enormous power and control to abusers — men who say they love the women they abuse and often threaten with death. Senator Ernst must listen to survivors and those who work for their safety. She can distinguish herself by doing all she can to stop violence against women.”
Advocates and domestic violence survivors in Iowa have been speaking out, constituents have attempted to contact Senator Ernst directly for nearly a year to address this issue, but have been unable to speak with her. Ernst’s constituents and every Iowan concerned about domestic violence are encouraged to contact her office and demand that she take appropriate steps to stand up for survivors.
Click here to read the report, entitled “Joni Ernst refuses to protect domestic violence survivors.”
Progress Iowa is a multi-issue progressive advocacy organization with a network of more than 75,000 progressives. Year-round, Progress Iowa advocates for a stronger middle class, first-class public education, and fairness for all Iowans under the law. To learn more, visit progressiowa.org.
###
