How Mariannette Miller-Meeks used taxpayer funds to boost her campaign

A Bleeding Heartland investigation

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks speaks on the U.S. House floor on June 27, 2024. Screenshot from official video

This exclusive reporting first appeared at Bleeding Heartland and is shared here as part of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. For regular emails linking to all recent Bleeding Heartland articles and commentary, including more coverage of the Iowans in Congress or the 2024 elections, subscribe to the free Evening Heartland newsletter. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read the whole article without interruption at this link.

We often hear that Iowans like to re-elect their incumbents. But when it comes to members of the U.S. House, Iowa’s office-holders have less job security than many of their peers.

Across the country, voters have re-elected more than 90 percent of U.S. House incumbents in most elections over the past five decades. Here in Iowa, where our four districts are not gerrymandered, challengers defeated two sitting members of Congress in 2018, two in 2020 (one in the primary, one in the general election), and one in 2022.

Incumbents still enjoy inherent advantages in a Congressional campaign: higher name recognition, larger contributions from political action committees, more opportunities to generate news coverage, and an official budget that can fund outreach to constituents. But not all House members use the available tools the same way.

This post, the first in a series, will explore how Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks has used her office to boost her re-election chances in Iowa’s first Congressional district.

Notably, Miller-Meeks has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on messages to constituents, with much of the spending going through her top campaign vendor. She has also built up goodwill by being one of the chamber’s most frequent floor speakers, and has used the earmark process to help fund projects in her district.

A VULNERABLE INCUMBENT

Outside Iowa, Miller-Meeks is best known for winning the closest U.S. House race in the country in 2020 (a six-vote margin out of around 394,000 ballots cast). After she defeated Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan by a little more than 20,000 votes (53.4 percent to 46.6 percent) in 2022, most forecasters considered IA-01 a “likely Republican” hold for this election cycle.

As Bleeding Heartland discussed in more detail here, the district’s fundamentals, such as voter registration totals and recent voting history across the 20 counties, slightly favor the GOP.

However, observers in both parties now see IA-01 as highly competitive. Miller-Meeks managed just 56 percent of the vote in the June primary against a little-known, under-funded Republican challenger.

An internal poll conducted for Bohannan’s campaign in late August showed the contenders tied at 47 percent. This month, the Democratic-aligned House Majority PAC—which didn’t make a serious play for this district in 2022—reserved $2.3 million in television air time for the IA-01 race. The group followed up less than two weeks later with an additional $1.1 million in reservations for TV markets reaching parts of the district—a sign Bohannan’s survey was not a fluke.

Republicans haven’t released any of their own polling on this race, but their numbers apparently signal trouble for the incumbent as well. Last week the GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund announced TV ad reservations of $925,000 in Davenport, $775,000 in Cedar Rapids, and $2.5 million in Des Moines, some of which will go toward helping Miller-Meeks. (Most counties in the third district receive Des Moines-based stations.)

The Cook Political Report, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and Split Ticket all rate IA-01 as a “lean Republican” race. Inside Elections recently changed its rating to “toss-up.”

As Miller-Meeks fights to save her political career, the perks of her office may come in handy.

TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR HELPFUL MESSAGES

Bohannan’s campaign has out-raised the incumbent’s for four straight quarters, and the disparity is greater if you exclude the PAC contributions that have kept Miller-Meeks near parity with the challenger in cash on hand.

But thanks to the “franking privilege” all members of Congress enjoy, Miller-Meeks has been able to spend hundreds of thousands of public dollars on direct communications with voters. Just like last cycle, she has not spread those government expenditures evenly across her two-year term. Rather, her office has spent the largest sums shortly before the legal window for taxpayer-funded unsolicited mass mailings or advertising closes 60 days before a primary or general election.

To track this spending, I used the House Communication Standards Commission’s searchable database to find material approved for Miller-Meeks to distribute using official funds. I then checked the Statements of Disbursements (quarterly reports showing all expenditures by House members’ offices) to see how much Miller-Meeks spent on franked mail or other communications.

For the most recent radio advertising, I searched Federal Communications Commission political files for spots placed using official funds, because the report on House members’ budgets during the third quarter of 2024 will be published later this fall.

More than $100,000 for taxpayer-funded radio ads

Two years ago, I noticed that Miller-Meeks didn’t spend any official funds on radio advertising in the non-election year, then spent more than $60,000 on taxpayer-funded radio spots in August and September 2022, leading up to the 60-day mark before the general election. The Congressional spending report later revealed that Miller-Meeks’ office paid $61,146.90 to OnMessage, Inc. for the radio ads (labeled “frankable telecom/teletownhall”) and another $70,072.52 to the firm for printed advertisements (direct mail) during the third quarter of 2022.

While those radio ads about IRS agents and high gasoline prices were cleared for franking funds, they were obviously written with a view to boosting the incumbent’s re-election prospects.

OnMessage, Inc. is a leading provider of campaign advertising for Republican candidates. According to Federal Election Commission filings, the firm was the top vendor for Miller-Meeks’ last two campaigns. Miller-Meeks for Congress spent more than $1 million with OnMessage during the 2020 election cycle, which was about 60 percent of her campaign’s total expenditures on that race. Miller-Meeks for Congress gave OnMessage more than $2 million in business during the 2022 cycle, just over 40 percent of the campaign’s total spending on the incumbent’s re-election bid.

“A huge victory for Iowans”

As a returning House member, Miller-Meeks used her franking privilege for a significant radio ad buy in May and June 2023. She narrated the 60-second commercial, which hailed a U.S. Supreme Court decision about an Environmental Protection Agency rule as a “huge victory for Iowans.” (Listen to the audio here.) Her office paid OnMessage $50,334.02 for that ad buy, its only purchase of services from the firm last year.

“Fighting to secure the border”

Things changed in early 2024, as the incumbent faced social conservative primary challenger David Pautsch. The Davenport pastor was a vocal Donald Trump supporter and had denounced Miller-Meeks as “wobbly” and unprincipled.

The incumbent’s office paid OnMessage $45,132.58 for a franked radio ad designed to appeal to a conservative audience. That expenditure alone exceeded Pautsch’s total campaign spending before the June primary.

The taxpayer-funded commercial ran from March 25 through April 4—the last day before the blackout period began. It aired on most of the stations that carried Miller-Meeks’ previous advertising, including WHO (AM talk radio based in Des Moines), WMT (AM talk radio based in Cedar Rapids), KIOA (an FM station playing classic hits in Des Moines), KAZR (an FM station playing rock music in Pella, commonly known as Lazer 103.3), WLLR (an FM station with a modern country music format in Davenport), and KKRQ (an FM station playing classic rock in Cedar Rapids, commonly known as 100.7 The Fox).

The script noted that Miller-Meeks “helped lead the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.” She promised to keep “fighting to secure the border, stop the flow of fentanyl, and prevent the loss of loved ones to illegal drugs and crime.” It was virtually indistinguishable from a campaign commercial, other than the voice-over near the end urging listeners to “call Congresswoman Miller-Meeks’ office at 202-225-6576” if they need assistance, and noting the ad was “Paid for by official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

“Banning shady PBM practices”

Miller-Meeks’ office ran a new radio ad from August 27 to September 5, the last day such spending would be legal before the general election.

The latest spot, produced by OnMessage, highlighted the incumbent’s supposed work to lower prescription drug costs. (Listen here.) Miller-Meeks said pharmacy benefit managers are a driving factor in high drug prices and touted a bill she had introduced “banning shady PBM practices.” To a casual listener, the spot would sound like a campaign commercial. Near the end, a male voice-over said, “Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Putting patients before profits.”

Final spending figures aren’t publicly available at this writing. Judging from the political files that several stations submitted recently to the FCC, Miller-Meeks’ office will pay OnMessage tens of thousands more taxpayer dollars for placing the spot about PBMs.

More than $100,000 for taxpayer-funded campaign-style mailings

Critics have long complained that “the vast majority of franked mail is unsolicited and, in effect, publicly funded campaign literature.” Members of Congress from both parties have used taxpayer funds to send flyers that strongly resemble campaign materials, usually spending more in election years.

Miller-Meeks fits the mold. A “new counties” mailer approved in March 2023 illustrates how franking should work, helping members of Congress convey useful information to those they represent. It contained a postcard with office addresses and phone numbers, along with a list of constituent services. Budget reports show her office spent just under $11,000 during the spring of 2023 on franked mail.

Postal costs for franked mail ballooned to $38,464.92 during the third quarter of last year. Although the budget reports don’t connect line items to specific mail pieces, the largest single payment to the U.S. Postal Service was for $36,477.89. Presumably that covered the cost of sending this newspaper-style mailer, which proclaimed, “MILLER-MEEKS BRINGS RESULTS TO SOUTHEAST IOWA.” Here’s one side.

During the last three months of 2023, Miller-Meeks’ office spent a little more than $1,000 on franked mail. But costs for taxpayers rose sharply after Pautsch launched his GOP primary challenge in IA-01.

Big push before the GOP primary

In early 2024, the incumbent used official funds to send mail boasting that she was “delivering for Iowa families.” Other pieces said she was “fighting to secure our border,” providing “better healthcare for families,” and “standing up for our veterans.” A couple of images from these mailings:

Shortly before the April 4 deadline for franked communications (60 days before the June primary), Miller-Meeks’ office paid for a mailer that claimed she was “making government work for us.”

Reports on disbursements indicate that Miller-Meeks’ office spent $16,515.07 on franked mail during the first quarter of this year and $43,688.06 during the second quarter. The universe of IA-01 residents who received these mailers is not known. Since the message was tailored to a conservative audience (matching likely GOP primary voters), they may have targeted fewer people than the newspaper-style mailing from the summer of 2023.

Remember, Pautsch’s total campaign spending before the GOP primary was around $38,000. Taxpayers spent roughly $105,000 during the same period on radio ads and mail promoting Miller-Meeks. That doesn’t take into account the hundreds of thousands of dollars her campaign and outside groups spent to help her secure the nomination.

Government-funded messages for the general election

Reports on office spending since July 1 are not yet available, but Miller-Meeks received permission this summer to use franking funds for materials that could persuade general election voters. A series of social media ads pushed political messages about energy, agriculture, and stopping the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun violence. I assume these were approved because they were not explicitly partisan, bashing “the Left” instead of Democrats.

Your tax dollars at work:

One mass mailing approved in July praised Miller-Meeks for “fighting to protect our Second Amendment rights”—a transparent effort to shore up her right flank. (This summer, it appeared the incumbent would have competition from pro-gun Libertarian candidate Nicholas Gluba. However, Republican activists successfully knocked him off the ballot.)

Another taxpayer-funded mailing was created around the time Iowa’s near-total abortion ban went into effect. Playing for a moderate audience, the piece informed IA-01 residents that Miller-Meeks belongs to the “Maternity Care Caucus” and wants to “give women support during pregnancy.”

The last flyer, submitted near the end of the legal window for franked mass mailings, sought to rebut Democratic claims that abortion bans could threaten access to fertility treatments. It claimed Miller-Meeks supports IVF and noted she “is introducing a bill to establish a refundable tax credit for in vitro fertilization expenses.” The House Communications Standards Commission deemed this mailing permissible if distributed on or before September 5.

I will update this post when Congressional office spending figures for the third quarter of 2024 are online.

Telephone town halls

Miller-Meeks doesn’t hold frequent in-person public meetings, but she convenes telephone town halls every few months. These can be more appealing to members of Congress, because it’s easy to speak to large numbers of constituents at once. In addition, staff control the microphones. Unlike a meeting where critics or protesters can make themselves heard, it’s easy to screen inconvenient questions out of a telephone town hall.

Although members of Congress can’t engage in electioneering during an official town hall, they can seek to improve their image and public support by talking up their work and where they stand on various issues.

According to statements of disbursements, each telephone town hall costs Miller-Meeks’ office between $4,500 and $12,500. I didn’t notice any spike in this kind of spending during election years. But Miller-Meeks did schedule a telephone town hall for late March, near the end of the legal window for franked spending before Iowa’s primary election.

Similarly, the latest telephone town hall took place on September 4, just before the blackout date for the November election. The selected topics—”the rising costs of prescription drugs and improving access to quality healthcare”—seem tailor-made for general election voters.

HUNDREDS OF HOUSE FLOOR SPEECHES

Miller-Meeks doesn’t frequently give speeches in uncontrolled public settings. In 2022 and again this year, she declined the invitation to speak on the Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox at the Iowa State Fair.

In contrast, the IA-01 incumbent is a heavy user of the microphones in the halls of Congress.

According to a tally by C-SPAN, Miller-Meeks ranked sixth among all U.S. House members in terms of number of days speaking on the floor during her first term (2021 and 2022). At this writing, C-SPAN calculates that Miller-Meeks ranks eleventh for speaking days on the House floor in the current Congress, having given remarks on 81 different days since January 2023.

By comparison, other Iowa Republicans have used fewer of those opportunities: C-SPAN counted 24 floor speech days for Representative Zach Nunn (IA-03) and eleven days each for Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-02) and Randy Feenstra (IA-04).

C-SPAN’s tally understates how often Miller-Meeks employs this tactic. Scrolling through her official YouTube channel, you can see that on many days, she uses five minutes of floor time to deliver three, four, or more brief speeches (usually less than 60 seconds) on a range of topics. She typically has some visual aid; her office budget covers those printing and production costs.

I counted more than 100 House floor speeches by Miller-Meeks over the past twelve months alone. The majority recognize a constituent for some accomplishment. There are kids who saved a life, became an Eagle Scout, or received an extracurricular honor in sports, music, or science. There are numerous award-winners: teachers, a school nurse, a humor writer, a winemaker, a public works director, Miss Iowa USA, and a Guinness World Record holder for a pencil collection.

Miller-Meeks flags lots of special occasions: awareness months on suicide prevention, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or glaucoma; appreciation weeks for police, nurses, and clean energy; national days for agriculture, librarians, recycling, and skilled trades.

Sports victories are also popular, involving any area high school or University of Iowa team, and of course Olympic athletes—most recently Paralympics gold medalist Matt Stutzman of Fairfield.

About two dozen floor speeches gave a shout out to some civic organization or business: awards for the Clinton Municipal Airport, the I-74 Mississippi River Bridge, a minor league baseball park in the Quad Cities, and Iowa PBS.

Miller-Meeks has celebrated noteworthy retirements: Iowa women’s basketball coach Lisa Bluder, a longtime Quad Cities news anchor, fire chiefs in Bettendorf and Indianola, an employee at the Iowa City VA, and the University of Iowa’s longest-serving K-9 police dog. She has paid tribute to some who passed away, such as former Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey and Lee County Sheriff David Lee Ireland.

Milestones are another common theme: 30 years on the job for two Warren County emergency dispatchers, the Community Foundation of Greater Muscatine‘s 25th anniversary, 50 years for the Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission, and 60 years of operation for the “iconic” Iowa 80 Truckstop.

As a veteran, Miller-Meeks often highlights military themes in her floor speeches: the U.S. Army’s 249th birthday, the 80th anniversary of D-Day, Women’s Veterans Recognition Day, Military Appreciation Month, PTSD Awareness Month, an inspiring Gold Star spouse, and a Vietnam veteran who finally received the medals he earned. Just in the past year, she has celebrated the 100th birthdays of two World War II veterans who lived in southeast Iowa.

A tremendous amount of staff work must go into scouting out these topics and preparing the written remarks and placards. Miller-Meeks shares the videos in her weekly email newsletters, and some of the floor speeches generate favorable local media coverage. I would guess most lead to good word of month for the incumbent too. Whatever your political leanings, it’s an honor to be recognized by a member of Congress. Who wouldn’t tell their friends and family about it?

USING THE EARMARK PROCESS

When criticizing Miller-Meeks, Bohannan has primarily focused on reproductive rights or Congressional votes allegedly swayed by special interest contributions. She has also dinged the incumbent for voting against the bipartisan infrastructure bill in 2021. That legislation is expected to bring some $5 billion in federal funding to Iowa.

According to a White House fact sheet from March 2024, the infrastructure bill has already supported 366 specific projects in Iowa with $4.3 billion in funding, including $3.2 billion for transportation (roads, bridges, public transit, ports and airports), $321 million “for clean water and water infrastructure,” and $529.8 million for high-speed internet.

As Bohannan said during her August speech on the Des Moines Register’s Political Soapbox, “An infrastructure bill that’s fixing our roads, bridges, dams, locks here in southeast Iowa and creating hundreds of great paying jobs in the process. How can you vote against fixing the damned roads?” The Democrat has pointed out that Senator Chuck Grassley “helped negotiate that infrastructure bill and voted for it because he knew how great it was going to be for Iowa.”

Miller-Meeks tells a different infrastructure story.

Every year, she has submitted tens of millions of dollars in earmark requests, supporting many kinds of projects. For fiscal year 2024 alone, her district received about $28.4 million in earmarked funding to improve roads, wastewater treatment systems, the airport near Burlington, and education or health care facilities. Newspapers and local TV newscastssometimes cover the local projects that benefit.

The incumbent mentions the earmarks in her weekly email newsletters. House members can send those to subscribers year-round, even during the blackout period for unsolicited communications before primary or general elections. She occasionally highlights one of her successful earmark requests in House floor speeches, such as $1 million in funding for the Road of Honor in Keokuk’s National Cemetery, and $1.5 million for the University of Iowa’s physics and astronomy program.

The funding earmarked for IA-01 projects is only a small fraction of the billions of dollars Iowa will receive thanks to the infrastructure bill Miller-Meeks voted against. Nevertheless, she can truthfully say at groundbreakings or ribbon-cuttings that she brought money back to her district. For generations, Congressional incumbents have used that point to make the case for another term in office.

---

I’m proud to be part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative, which Ed Tibbetts has dubbed “your Sunday newspaper.” Click here to subscribe to our free Sunday morning roundup of columns from the week, and here to find our new political podcast, Iowa Down Ballot. We plan to record new podcasts weekly through the November election.