Stark contrasts emerge in race for attorney general

Earlier this year, Republican Brenna Findley struggled to outline the differences between herself and incumbent Attorney General Tom Miller. She called for a “new direction” in the attorney general’s office, but stopped short of calling for any specific reforms.

Tom Miller, left, and Brenna Findley

That’s changed. The attorney general race has taken a definite shape, with each candidate taking starkly opposing positions on a handful of controversial national issues, and on at least one recurring state issue.

Miller, an almost 30-year incumbent, has typically enjoyed easy victories. He was unopposed four years ago and earned almost twice as many votes as his Republican opponents in each of the two elections before that. Likely banking on another decisive win, Miller’s campaign so far has been almost entirely quiet.

But an anti-incumbent electorate this year could put him in danger. The Republican challenger — U.S. Rep. Steve King‘s former chief of staff — has aligned herself with the right-wing of her party, drawing an endorsement and a campaign stop from U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a tea party leader from Minnesota, and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 presidential hopeful. Findley trails Miller in campaign cash but posted some sizable fundraising totals. Findley’s campaign reported last week it had $164,000 cash on hand. Miller had $230,000.

Findley — who declined to be interviewed for this story — has hit Miller hard on backing Gov. Chet Culver‘s policy of charging citizens a fee for lawyers to review public records to determine if they can be released. She says he’s “stonewalling” Iowans’ access to public documents and obstructing the state’s open records law.

The Culver policy emerged in 2008 when the governor announced state agencies can charge residents for the time it takes government attorneys to review requested documents. That “reasonable” fee is estimated at $25 to $35 an hour. Miller said that’s legal, and Culver has since invoked the tactic a couple times — more than $600 to review records about a scandal in Atalissa and almost $800 to review e-mails about controversy at the Iowa Department of Aging. Those fees were to review the requested documents, and the Culver administration made no guarantee the documents would be released even if the fee were paid.

“Iowa taxpayers are already paying for their government. I don’t think taxpayers should have to pay twice when they request public records that they are entitled to under law,” Findley said in a press release.

But Miller stands by his endorsement of the policy, insisting the open records law, as written, allows state officials to put the cost of legal review of documents onto the requester.

“I think the legislature clarifying the law would be a very good idea,” Miller told The Iowa Independent, adding he thinks that change should come along with other open records reforms, including the creation of an independent open-government enforcement body. Findley hasn’t taken a stand on that issue, but has said her office would do more public records enforcement.

A push to explicitly list that power in law, though, is unlikely. Democrats in the legislature have resoundingly supported easier to access documents despite resistance from some of their statewide candidates, like Culver. And while the Republicans have lobbed attacks at Culver and Miller over the policy, they haven’t necessarily advocated for legislation to make the change.

Beyond interpretation of the state’s open records law, both attorney general candidates have weighed in on heated issues in the national spotlight: immigration and health care reform.

Much of Findley’s campaign has focused on challenging the federal health care reform bill signed by the president earlier this year. Specifically, Findley and conservative legal scholars cry unconstitutionality at the measure requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. In legal filings, the federal government has defended the mandate by arguing the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. The Obama administration has previously argued for the mandate based on the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The federal government is claiming that it has the authority to force Iowans to buy health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Findley said. “As Iowa’s Attorney General I would take a stand for Iowans against this abuse of power by joining 14 [now 18] other attorneys general from other states to challenge this unconstitutional law in court.”

But Miller has shrugged off claims like that, joining other attorneys general in saying a challenge to the law would be a waste of state resources.

“First and foremost, the attorney general’s office is a law office and has to be bound by the law, not by policy and politics or ideology,” he said on Iowa Press. “Once you look at the law, the case is very strong that it’s constitutional in the legislation.”

On immigration, Findley has spoken positively about Arizona‘s controversial immigration enforcement law. She said she “supports what’s behind the law” and hinted that she would support stricter enforcement of immigration law by law enforcement here in Iowa.

Miller, though, mirrors Democrats’ talking points and calls for the federal government to foster changes to immigration policy.

“It’s a matter of really a national problem,” he said. “It cries out for a national solution. We need something from Congress to do that. And that is the way out and the only way out of this enormous problem.”