I hope other Iowa Democratic legislators in Des Moines take a lesson. Walking out on Bobby Kaufmann, Johnson county Democrats Rep. Amy Nielsen, D-North Liberty and Rep. Adam Zabner, D-Iowa City, got a headline that simply pointing out to Rs the error of their ways would not have.
“Two Democrats walked out of a House subcommittee meeting Tuesday on an election bill that would make it more difficult for Iowans to challenge Donald Trump’s place on the 2024 general election ballot.
“The wide-ranging election bill would allow federal candidates convicted of felonies to appear on Iowa’s ballot, ban ballot drop boxes, ban ranked-choice voting and change the deadline for when absentee ballots must be returned to a county auditor to be counted.
“At Tuesday’s House subcommittee meeting, Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, interjected as Rep. Amy Nielsen, D-North Liberty, was speaking.”
I don’t live in Iowa-04 but I’ve been following Ryan Melton’s congressional campaign because he is a plain talking, hard working candidate who I think Iowans would like. Apparently, incumbent Randy Feenstra is afraid of that too, according to this interesting story from the campaign trail, outlined in Melton’s newsletter below. Melton was impressive during his appearance on Iowa Press the first time he ran against Feenstra.
Here is a highlight from that program:
“I don’t have a paid Washington D.C. consultant that tells me what to say, I don’t have any paid consultants that tell me what to say. My words are my own. I have a master’s degree, I’m a smart guy. I can look at the data in front of me without bias, without corporate influence and make conclusions that I think are sound and reasonable. And so in this space as far as political messaging, I don’t say anything that I have first put through the ElectionTron 5000 to make sure that it appeases enough voters. I say the truth. I try to do the right things regardless.” – Ryan Melton, Iowa Press, 2022
Sign up for Ryan’s newsletter and please consider a donation to the campaign, links below.
###
This is Ryan Melton, Democrat running for the U.S. House in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District. During my 2024 campaign, I’ll send you a weekly email to keep you in the loop while not overwhelming your inbox. Typically, the newsletter will be a review from the week prior: Where we went, what issues of note were on the minds of those I met with, where we’ll be in the next week, etc.
Where we went and what people were concerned about:
Last week, I spoke with the Drinking Liberally group at Cronk’s in Denison mid-week, and met folks in Huxley, Gilbert, and Nevada at get togethers on Saturday.
Last week on the campaign trail, the hot button issues folks cared about the most were:
Every week on the campaign trail, there’s at least one person that asks me if I’ll debate my opponent, who is probably going to be Randy Feenstra again (although he does have a primary opponent this time). Most likely not, even though I personally would love to. It seems unlikely he’d ever agree to it.
Last campaign, Feenstra was getting criticized in the press for being the only Congressional opponent to have not accepted a debate offer. I know a number of folks who had served with Feenstra in the state legislature, and their common takeaway is that Feenstra has thin skin. This seemed to be confirmed by his reaction to the bad press he was getting for dodging me.
After the bad press, Feenstra and I both received an invite to a joint voter forum run by the Iowa Corngrowers Association. I accepted the invite like I had accepted all other requests to speak on the same stage as Feenstra, but didn’t expect anything from it considering Feenstra had dodged me at every turn. However, he accepted this one. I was as happy as a kid on Christmas morning. I spent the next few weeks prepping, talking to folks like J.D. Scholten and others.
I walked into the building in Fort Dodge on night one of the two night event the forum was being held at and was ushered into what turned out to be a small room with roughly ten people. I quickly noticed there was no recording equipment and no press. I found that odd, but then Feenstra walked in, we shook hands, and began.
The moderator from the Iowa Corngrowers Association kicked off the event by…thanking Randy Feenstra for calling them to set up the event! I assume Feenstra didn’t want them to reveal that he called in a favor to have them put on a closed door, private event, with no press and no recording equipment as a trial run to test whether he’d feel comfortable enough publicly debating me on Iowa Public Television, as he had not yet declined that invite.
I feel I did well, and knocked Feenstra back on his heels often. He started aggressively but ended up in survival mode. At the end, we were each given 3 minutes to finish however we wanted. I chose to look at him directly and ask for a public debate, making clear the citizens of the 4th deserved it. He looked like he was eating a lemon. He was not enjoying the evening.
A few days later, he declined the debate invite from Iowa Public Television without giving a reason. The silver lining? IPTV gave me the entire half hour, and that YouTube link is listed below.
I’m a firm believer that candidates for public office should regularly open themselves up to public scrutiny. That’s why I accept every journalist’s interview ask, every debate offer, and it’s why I pre-advertise my events on Facebook and Twitter, so folks of all political affiliations can seek me out. I’m not going to run for office to represent people only to hide from those same people like Feenstra does.
Let’s keep fighting the good fight together.
Our schedule for this week:
Saturday, February 17, 2024: Door knocking in Storm Lake.
Saturday, February 17, 2024: Pizza Ranch Party Room at 5 in Storm Lake.
Sunday, February 18, 2024: Elk’s Lodge in Council Bluffs 1-4 pm (County Party Chili Fundraiser)
Recent press/social media posts of note:
We again are rejecting all Corporate PAC money, so we really rely on, and are extremely grateful for your support. We’ll spend your donations on ways to expand our reach to as many voters as possible, including:
-Post cards and other mailers and postage
-Hand out cards for events
-Text messaging campaigns
-Transportation costs for events and door knocking
-Campaign website costs
-Radio ads, Social Media Ads, and (hopefully) TV ads
-Our campaign managers
Finally, if you have anyone else in mind that would like to be added to our email list or who would be interested in volunteering, let us know at melton4iowa@gmail.com!
Please share this action alert from Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors (JFAN).
Factory farms have gotten away with a slap on the wrist for polluting our water for far too long. Our legislators have the opportunity to help enforce accountability on polluters that can protect our water and communities.
Contact House Agriculture Committee Chair, Mike Sexton, at 712-830-3960 to share why you care about Iowa’s water and your concerns with factory farms! We want to flood his inbox with support for action that protects Iowans and our water quality by asking him to schedule a subcommittee hearing on meaningful legislation like HF 2354, & HF 2124. Also demand that he opposes SSB 3103, & HSB 607, two bills that will harm Iowans and the environment.
Here’s a sample script you can use:
I am calling to ask you to support and pass clean water legislation that holds factory farm polluters accountable and to oppose legislation that would allow for increased harm to our communities. Support and schedule a subcommittee hearing this week for HF 2354 and HF 2124 and oppose HSB 607 and SSB 3103. Thank you.
This bill would give the Iowa DNR the ability to require and enforce Clean Water Act Permits for existing and new factory farms in Iowa. it would hold them to the same standards as other industries and increase accountability, transparency, violation penalties ($$$), and maintenance requirements to help prevent spills. It also enables the state to pass a law that is more stringent than the federal Clean Water Act.
HF 2124: Factory Farm Moratorium
This bill would prevent the construction of new or expanding factory farms including partially roofed confinements.
THE BAD BILLS:
SSB 3103: Removes the Option to Anonymously Report Potential Factory Farm Violations to the DNR
It would also require the DNR to reveal the name of the person filing the complaint to the potential violator if the DNR investigates the complaint, removing protections for neighbors afraid of retribution.
HHB 607: Nutrient Management Plan Loophole
This bill would require new or updated nutrient management plans (NMP) to be valid upon submission until the DNR has a chance to approve or deny the plan. If the DNR denies the NMP, the factory farm owner can can object and the plan remains valid until all judicial reviews are exhausted.
There are ways that our elected can stand to protect our communities, health, and environment and they wont do it out of the kindness of their hearts! They need to hear from you!
Thank you for calling today!
The Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture is a coalition of local, state, and national organizations all committed to a common goal of demanding a moratorium on new factory farms in Iowa.
From the February 2024 edition ofThe Prairie Progressive, Iowa’s oldest progressive newsletter. The PP is funded entirely by reader subscription, available in hard copy for $15/yr. Send check to PP, Box 1945, Iowa City 52244. Click here for archived issues.
Iowa is in trouble. The current legislative session has become a factory of injustice for an aggressive and self-righteous majority. Iowa’s LGBTQ community, specifically transgender and non-binary Iowans, are the favored targets of the moment for a raft of harebrained new laws.
Good news: A bill that would have removed gender identity from Iowa’s civil rights law failed to advance out of committee. But there is little room for relief in the state right now as our governor propels her juggernaut of far-right legislation along.
Bad news: The day after the bill on Iowa civil rights law sputtered, a new bill emerged. It would force any department at the state or local level that issues identifying documents (driver’s licenses and birth certificates are specified) to add a field for gender at birth, and a field to denote gender reassignment. This designation would appear on the birth certificate and the driver’s license or non-drive state-issued ID.
Details appear in a new section of Code, 4.1A Statutory Construction—Sex and Related Terms. Here, the verbal and legal contortions necessary to initiate this outlandish invasion of privacy are outlined. Their scope, and the cavalier way in which they are declared law,
would overwhelm the imagination of Orwell.
A female, you will be glad to know, is defined therein as “a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova.” A male, happily, is “a person whose
biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female.” We can all find a million problems with this. What about biological reproductive systems that are not formed for this intent, in which some genetic error or omission prevents the reproductive
mission from being achieved? Before they even attempt to consider such questions, they move on to a couple of seismic public service announcements.
e. The term “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical.”
f. Separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.
You know you are in trouble when your state’s book-banning political party chooses to become lexicographers. But there’s more! I give you:
g. A person born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development shall be provided the legal protections and accommodations afforded under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and applicable state law.
So they’ve crafted a blunt instrument of a law to single out trans Iowans by forcibly identifying them, and then defining them as disabled under the ADA. Eligible for all applicable protections and accommodations, of course.
Iowa’s governor, and her legislative majority, is generating a maelstrom of ill-intentioned law and trying to push it along. They would imperil citizens’ privacy and safety by forcing trans Iowans to present driver’s licenses and birth certificates that show them to be trans.
After creating a heretofore unknown level of hate and hysteria against trans persons, they would now force them to be branded on official documents for all to see and for anyone to
harass, threaten, or worse.
The pressing question for Iowans who rise to object is: How best do we do so? By what means can we most effectively make our voices heard and gather reasonable Iowans
into our ranks to oppose this vile incursion of government into our lives?
It is no small question. It will define our activities in politics and the pursuit of justice this year and likely for years to come. The debate has already begun in some counties. The very night the bill had been introduced in the legislature to track trans people on state ID
documents and justify separate-but-equal treatment, the Johnson County Democratic Central Committee met to consider a resolution of censure against the county attorney. My word limit precludes me from comprehensively addressing the incident. Nonetheless it is
emblematic of where we are situated now in Iowa as people committed to promoting justice.
The censure vote failed by a 34-13 margin. The focus must now shift to the future. And that future matters, especially with bills flying out of the Capitol weekly that diminish our rights and degrade our humanity. We must consider carefully the methods, means, and goals of how to proceed.
I am no grand protest strategist, but I know from experience that some methods are effective, while others are alienating and divisive. Right now, many good people may not care about that. Too many blows have been taken by transgender and other targeted communities; too many insults have been borne for them to give a damn if they are alienating or sympathetic to the larger voting public.
But the problem is, if we don’t care and proceed with care, we’ll fail in our efforts. And if we fail in our efforts… well, there’s no end to what the governor and her legislative goons will do. The calculus of consequences is terrible, and I hate it, but we must all become adept at it if we are to regain the upper hand in our ethically upended state.
—Kim Painter is the Johnson County Recorder.
Contact your Iowa State Senator: 515-281-3371
Contact your Iowa State Representative: 515-281-3221
Zap Tura at xBk Live in Des Moines, Iowa. Photo by Chris DeLine, used with permission.
The Politics of Playlists by Chris DeLine.
Editor’s Note: Chris is a writer living in Cedar Rapids. He also curates Iowa music playlists at villin.net.
On the first day of June in 2022 I loaded up the last of my belongings into my car, signed papers closing on the sale of my house, and made my way to Highway 24, heading north out of Nashville. When considering whatever a “hometown” might be, Nashville was as much a hometown for me as any place I’d ever lived. I’m originally from western Canada, and have lived in several Midwestern states, but Nashville is still what feels like my “home.” It’s where I grew most as a person, and have spent the bulk of my adult life. As I drove out of town that day, however, I began the process of starting to make a new place my home: Iowa, and in particular, Cedar Rapids.
Over the course of my years down south I had the good fortune of being around a lot of different aspects of the music scene, and several times tried my hand at creating a blog dedicated to celebrating the creativity that inhabited the city. For the better part of a year before I moved north, I leaned in on a different medium, creating and sharing playlists specifically aimed at elevating a few different genres within the city’s scene. While I hadn’t been focusing on doing so for long by the time I left town, I knew I’d found something that was important to me in the process; not just in terms of the rich experiences stemming from tapping into music and meeting artists along the way, but in terms of strengthening my bond with the space around me. Every month I compiled playlist updates and shared them across several different digital service providers (DSPs), airing out my journey in public across social media and attempting to build a small audience along the way. About two weeks after touching down in Cedar Rapids, I decided to carry the spirit of that exercise forward to see what I could find within what was to be my new home.
There’s no exaggerating when I say I knew nothing about the Iowa music scene when I started this project, but in the year and a half that’s passed since then I’ve been repeatedly blown away by the depth and variety of creativity coming out of the state. In the process of carrying on my original mission, I’ve built up a collection of playlists incorporating genres ranging from rap to punk to pop and electronic music, with scattered elements of everything in between thrown in along the way. As I’ve carried on, it’s been interesting to see how this process has intersected with broader cultural talking points, and what sort of personal conversations have grown out of attempting to shine a light on Iowa’s local and homegrown talent. One such question was recently raised to me, which inspired this very article; that being, “Is there a political dimension among the Iowa artists you follow?”
While I’ve never considered this process to be a particularly political one, the more I thought about it, the more obvious my answer became. I’ve been making mixtapes of one kind or another since childhood, but rarely do I recall thinking outside the lines of aesthetics when considering my own process of curation. Absolutely, the hunt for new music has led me down rabbit holes, learning about the artists who’ve created songs I enjoy. But under the scrutiny of a question focused on whether the process is guided by a political dimension, I’m prone to saying yes, it is. It is, but… it’s also politically inconsistent. This point is made far more apparent when considering identity politics, and the implications that follow learning more about the people behind the music they create. While publishing updates at least once a week, I’ve shared over 2000 songs since I started these Iowa music playlists. My intent has never been to take on a role of ideological bouncer, however, standing at the door, checking to ensure that creators’ belief systems are purely aligned with my own. But over the course of sharing that many songs I’ve absolutely been challenged to reassess the basis behind my selection process.
After one update last summer I received a message reading, “I’m not sure if you know, but [name redacted] got pretty heavily canceled here. Multiple accounts of sexual harassment & abuse spanning years & some of the victims were even minors. Pretty sleazy guy, honestly. Just wanted to let you know.” A month prior to that, I’d released a podcast interview with Indigenous composer Geneviève Gros-Louis, focused around advocacy work stemming from her own personal history surrounding this topic. I remember the feeling that washed over me when I saw that message; I absolutely do not want to be a part of any process that implicitly cosigns harmful or damaging behaviors, but in a way that’s exactly what I’d done. Had I known about the background to the song I shared I wouldn’t have included it, and when I was informed I was quick to remove it from the rotation. How is this relevant? Looking more broadly at this particular situation now, I believe a conversation about platforming the work of an alleged abuser has absolutely become a political one, particularly when framing it within a modern social context. When you have the bulk of a Republican voting base unwavering in their support of a Presidential candidate who’s also a convicted and unrepentant abuser, how does the fallout from sexual abuse not become political?
It’s not that I haven’t been aware of the political dimension to music, or art in general, but that I don’t have a good handle on how to regularly and consistently reconcile it within my own process. Is it black and white that I shouldn’t platform a band that has supported a President with views and policies staunchly perpendicular to my own? Perhaps. How about artists whose social media posts occasionally reflect a bit of dog whistling? How about artists who share ideological red herrings online, whether they be curiously conservative “Libertarian” messages or overt religious beliefs suspiciously aligned with modern conservative fundamentalism? And should I be holding everyone along the way to the same standard? I don’t feel confident in always knowing where the line is.
Even the DSP of choice bears relevance when considering the political impact behind which platform one uses to merely listen to music. Just this week, Spotify reportedly inked a new deal with podcasting giant Joe Rogan to continue selling ads against his show; a show which has historically been reviled for championing conservative dis and misinformation. Spotify’s past inaction over issues specifically surrounding Rogan’s messaging led to the likes of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulling what they could of their catalogs from the platform, yet Spotify remains the most widely used music streaming service in the world. That said, it’s not as if other streaming options are without issue. Touted over its sound quality and marginally higher payout rates for artists, TIDAL is owned by Block, Inc., which itself is owned in part by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who endorsed Robert Kennedy Jr. last year. It shouldn’t go without saying that other streaming leaders, such as Apple, YouTube, and Amazon are hardly without fault when considering the litany of scandals each has produced over the years.
Without question, the listening process is one subject to refinement over time. And music being a fundamental part of life for me, listening is an extension of living. Implicit within that practice are decisions around how closely what I’m listening to, and what I’m sharing, are to align with my own personal values. I value the celebration of local art, and recognize that doing so is itself a politically loaded gesture in an era when financial support of the arts is being hamstrung by short-sighted federal and state budgeting restraints. But existing within a stew of ideological gray areas doesn’t preclude me from questioning whether there’s a political dimension to what I’m doing personally. In an unexpected way, asking whether there’s a political consideration among the Iowa artists I follow has led me to reconsidering what it is I’m doing through the lens of what I feel makes a space a home. In part, that takes buying in and investing in a space, and celebrating the elements of it that reconcile with one’s core beliefs. Without grandstanding or making personal promises to myself that I might not be able to keep, this has opened the door for a different sort of question surrounding how ideologically inconsistent I want to be within this practice. The politics of playlists are only ever as complicated as one chooses to make them.
Check out some of Chris DeLine’s curated Spotify playlists of Iowa musicians:
From the February 2024 edition ofThe Prairie Progressive, Iowa’s oldest progressive newsletter. The PP is funded entirely by reader subscription, available in hard copy for $15/yr. Send check to PP, Box 1945, Iowa City 52244. Click here for archived issues. Written by Paul Deaton.
There is not much traction in Iowa for nuclear disarmament causes. Iowans are occupied with a state government taking public money away from public school systems and giving it to private ones. In several important ways Iowa is becoming a paternalistic, uneducated, and cruel place to live and that occupies a lot of our bandwidth. All the same, Iowans know the risk posed by nuclear weapons. If used, they could disrupt society all over the globe. Few, if any, people want that.
“Presidential leadership may be the most important factor that determines whether the risk of nuclear arms racing, proliferation, and war will rise or fall in the years ahead,” Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association wrote. Most Iowans are aware of the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. However, they don’t vote for a president based on nuclear weapons policy positions. In fact, Republicans no longer write a national platform, so who knows what their policies are? Elections today have become more tribal in nature and much less issue oriented.
A lot is at stake regarding nuclear weapons proliferation during the 2024 election. As the primary season began in Iowa, the expected nominees for president are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. We have a good idea how they will address nuclear weapons related issues based on their past behavior. Biden would follow time-tested methods of controlling nuclear weapons at home and abroad: through negotiations, treaties and agreements with nuclear armed states and with those like Iran and North Korea that develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Trump is belligerent and it’s hard to know what he would do. The uncertainty about his potential actions if elected president is itself a nuclear risk. A crucial factor in whether one of today’s nuclear challenges erupts into a full-scale crisis, unravels the nonproliferation system, or worse will be the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and threats of nuclear use have raised the specter of nuclear conflict,” Kimball said. “To his credit, Biden has not issued nuclear counterthreats and has backed Ukraine in its struggle to repel Russia’s invasion.”
Well before Putin’s nuclear rhetoric regarding Ukraine, Trump engaged in an exchange of taunts with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2017. In response, North Korea pursued its own nuclear weapons program, creating more risk of a nuclear detonation.
Trump hasn’t seen a long-standing international agreement he likes. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires in 2026. Trump didn’t agree to an extension in 2021 when he was in office. Biden extended it by five years just under the wire. If elected, Trump seems unlikely to sign a new agreement with Russia. Biden, on the other hand, proposed new talks with Russia on a post-2026 nuclear arms control framework.The war in Ukraine seems likely to delay progress on such talks.
In November, senior Chinese and U.S. officials held the first arms control talks in years. Progress seems possible with Biden. Trump? Not so much.
Iranian leaders continue to increase capabilities to produce weapons-grade uranium in response to Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw unilaterally from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He proposed imposing tougher U.S. sanctions to pressure Iran into negotiating a new deal. They now are threatening to pull out of the NPT if the United States or other UN Security Council members snap back international sanctions against Iran, according to Kimball.
The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Trump administration did not help when in 2018 it declared the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty, and in 2020 when senior Trump officials discussed resuming explosive testing to intimidate China and Russia. Biden, on the other hand, has reaffirmed U.S. support for the treaty; and his team proposed technical talks on confidence-building arrangements at the former Chinese, Russian, and U.S. test sites.
How do nuclear disarmament activists get a grip on the need to disarm, both in the U.S. and abroad? Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty already called for elimination of nuclear weapons. The question is one of political will. On that, we look to the November elections to see if the country will have any.
Closing out a packed week of progressive, grassroots activism, here is another chance to get involved, take action, and let your voice be heard if you don’t like what Republicans are doing at the capitol. Please contact your legislator and share this action alert from OneIowa.
Iowa Republicans are fast tracking a religious exemption law (HSB 614 / SF 2095) through the Iowa legislature and it is now eligible for debate in both the House and Senate. This religious exemption bill is vague and ripe for abuse. Broad religious exemptions open the door for people to claim they have a right to decide which laws they will and won’t obey. This creates uncertainty for businesses and opens the floodgates to legal chaos and frivolous lawsuits at taxpayer expense. It leaves LGBTQ Iowans, single mothers, children, and many others vulnerable to discrimination.
This week has been extremely busy. We’ve had you show up and speak out on multiple occasions. Next week is the first legislative funnel which is typically the busiest week of the year. We know it has been exhausting but we need you stay engaged. They are counting on you burning out because they are throwing everything at us at once. Prove them wrong. Take action now, and continue to take action as necessary.
So many opportunities to make a difference at the state level right now. Here’s another one!
Take Action to Tell the DNR to Pass Strong CAFO Rules!
A year ago Governor Reynolds issued Executive Order 10, which requires all state agencies, including the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), to repeal their existing regulations and adopt new regulations that reduce the number of regulations and reduce the regulatory burden on business interests.
The DNR regulations being revised include those in Chapter 65 related to animal feeding operations. There are several flaws in the revised rules.
Please tell the DNR that they need to improve the rules related to building manure containment in karst terrain, that manure structures should not be built in floodplains, that animals housed solely in a confinement building with the feed bunk outside an open window should not be considered an open feedlot, and the rules that allow applying manure to snow-covered or frozen ground need specific requirements.
We need to stand up for Iowa’s water and pass the strongest rules possible!
Thank you for speaking up for accountability in our leaders,
Wally Taylor
Legal Chair
Sierra Club Iowa Chapter Facebook
TODAY AT THE CAPITOL: Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action Volunteers and Lawmakers Gather at the Iowa State Capitol for Annual Advocacy Day to Demand Passage of Common Sense Gun Reform During the 2024 Legislative Session
DES MOINES, Iowa — Today, February 7th volunteers from the Iowa chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, both part of Everytown for Gun Safety’s grassroots network, will gather for their annual Advocacy Day in Des Moines to meet with lawmakers and advocate for gun safety measures to be passed and signed into law during this legislative session. Gun sense champion lawmakers, including Senator Janice Weiner and Representative Lindsay James, will be available throughout the day to speak with press about their push for gun violence.
WHEN: Wednesday, February 7
WHERE: Iowa State Capitol Des Moines, IA 50319
Advocacy day comes just weeks after a mass shooting at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa, perpetrated by a 17 year old shooter, rocked the entire state. A sixth grader and the school principal were shot and killed, and six others, four of them students, were shot and wounded. Since the shooting, Iowa lawmakers have taken minimal actionable steps to prevent further tragedies.
Iowa has weak gun laws and extremist lawmakers have spent the last decade rolling back the few gun safety measures they once had, including the state legislature’s recent votes to eliminate both its permit-to-purchase and concealed carry permitting requirements in 2021. Just four years earlier, Iowa enacted a Shoot First law. Iowa also sees disparate racial impacts of gun violence that exceed the national average: Black people in the state are significantly more likely to die by gun violence than white people.
More information about gun violence in Iowa is available here.
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund (“Everytown for Gun Safety”) is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly ten million supporters and more than 700,000 donors including moms, mayors, survivors, students, and everyday Americans who are fighting for common-sense gun safety measures that can help save lives. Learn more at www.everytown.org and follow us @Everytown.
About Moms Demand Action
Moms Demand Action is the nation’s largest grassroots volunteer network working to end gun violence. Moms Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization with nearly ten million supporters and more than 700,000 donors. Moms Demand Action campaigns for new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of our families, educates policymakers and parents about the importance of secure firearm storage and works to create a culture of gun safety through partnerships with businesses, community organizations and influencers.
There is a Moms Demand Action chapter in every state of the country and more than 700 local groups across the country. For more information or to get involved visit www.momsdemandaction.org.
Students Demand Action is the largest grassroots, youth-led gun violence prevention group in the country with more than 600 groups and active volunteers in every state and the District of Columbia. The movement, created by and for teens and young adults, aims to channel the energy and passion of high school and college-aged students into the fight against gun violence. Students Demand Action volunteers organize within their schools and communities to educate their peers, register voters, and demand common-sense solutions to this national public health crisis at the local, state, and federal level.
Students Demand Action is part of Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country with nearly ten million supporters and more than 700,000 donors. For more information or to get involved visit www.studentsdemandaction.org.
Governor Kim Keynolds: (515) 281-5211 U.S. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Iowa Members of Congress - Rep. Randy Feenstra (R) - Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) - Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) - Rep. Zach Nunn (R) Iowa US Senators - Senator Joni Ernst (R) - Senator Charles Grassley (R)
I hope other Iowa Democratic legislators in Des Moines take a lesson. Walking out on Bobby Kaufmann, Johnson county Democrats Rep. Amy Nielsen, D-North Liberty and Rep. Adam Zabner, D-Iowa City, got a headline that simply pointing out to Rs the error of their ways would not have.
Please share this action alert from Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors (
TODAY AT THE CAPITOL: Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action Volunteers and Lawmakers Gather at the Iowa State Capitol for Annual Advocacy Day to Demand Passage of Common Sense Gun Reform During the 2024 Legislative Session
Blog For Iowa 