Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
A D.C.-based First Amendment advocacy group is calling on state lawmakers to abandon the latest amendment to a campaign finance bill that would withhold tax breaks or incentives to corporations that spend money to influence political campaigns.
In the wake of the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a ban on political spending by corporations is a restriction of free speech, lawmakers vowed to change Iowa law to address the situation. Earlier this week the state Senate passed Senate File 2354, which would require corporations spending their money on campaign activities to report expenditures just like other campaign committees and add disclaimers on advertisements they pay for.
But state Rep. Charles Isenhart, D-Dubuque, wants to amend the House version of the bill to bar corporations from receiving state tax incentives for five years after making a campaign expenditure.
Jeff Patch, communications director for the Center for Competitive Politics, says the amendment’s inclusion would be a “poison pill” for an otherwise decent piece of legislation. While his group originally opposed the legislature’s efforts to reign in corporate spending on political campaigns, several amendments have made the bill much better, he said, although there are still some concerns.
But the latest amendment would “torpedo an otherwise sound bill that would offer Iowans reasonable disclosure of this political activity.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United clearly put all associations — corporations, unions, nonprofit advocacy groups — under the same First Amendment standard governing independent speech in elections, he said, but the amendment singles out corporations, which would not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
“If the bill includes a controversial provision — unrelated to Citizens United, someone is inevitably going to sue the state and would likely successfully obtain a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the law in the 2010 cycle,” he said. “Iowa lawmakers shouldn’t take potshots at business political activity at the expense of a clear campaign finance landscape for all candidates and associations during the already underway spring primary season and fall general election.”
The Des Moines Register reports that Isenhart withdrew the amendment but promised to bring it back up when certain details, including enforcement, are worked out.
Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter