IA-02 in play, Miller-Meeks ads, Iowa Supreme Court win for Sand

Dec. 8 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"

Many thanks to all who supported my year-end fundraiser! I believe that yesterday, I hit my original goal, which will help cover operating costs heading into the next legislative session (often the busiest time of year for me).

In this time of relentless media consolidation and newsroom layoffs, I’m grateful every day for my editorial independence and the community of readers standing behind me.

On to the main event: The audio file from the December 8 edition of “KHOI’s Capitol Week” is at the top of this post. Spencer Dirks and I covered a wide range of topics this week. If your email provider truncates this message, you can read it without interruption here.

Tennessee special indicates IA-02 is in play

Since late last year, it’s been obvious that Iowa’s first and third Congressional districts would be among the top-targeted U.S. House races in 2026. But the second district, where Donald Trump outpolled Kamala Harris by around 10 points, was not clearly in play until Republican incumbent Ashley Hinson jumped to the U.S. Senate race. It’s usually easier for the party out of power to flip an open seat than to defeat an incumbent.

National election forecasters still put IA-02 in the “likely Republican” category, as opposed to the more competitive “lean Republican” or “toss-up.” But last Tuesday, GOP candidate Matt Van Epps won a special election for Tennessee’s seventh district by about 9 points. Donald Trump had carried the district by 22 points in the 2024 presidential election.

You might not be very impressed by a Democrat overperforming by about 13 points. In several Iowa legislative special elections this year, Democrats have outperformed the Kamala Harris baseline by more than 20 points. But the turnout was extremely high for a special election, which makes the outcome more worrying for Republicans. As David Nir of The Downballot observed, “This was no sleepy, low-turnout affair. Voter participation was at midterm levels, which means that dozens of slightly bluer but still very red Republican seats could be in play next year.”

To be clear: a swing half as large as what we saw in Tennesee would not only doom Representatives Zach Nunn (IA-03) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01), it would endanger many more House Republicans around the country.

On Tuesday night, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was out with a statement saying the result in Tennessee showed that at least nine other Republican-held House districts—including IA-02—“are now undoubtedly in play.”

That is not far-fetched. Remember that in 2018, Abby Finkenauer defeated GOP incumbent Rod Blum in a similar district. Granted, northeast Iowa has swung hard toward the GOP since then. But I do expect both parties to spend quite a bit of money on this open seat.

Three Republicans are seeking the nomination in IA-02: former State Representative Joe Mitchell (who is looking like the front-runner), State Representative Shannon Lundgren, and State Senator Charlie McClintock.

Four Democrats are actively campaigning here: Lindsay James, Clint Twedt-Ball, Kathy Dolter, and Guy Morgan. EMILY’s List, a group that backs pro-choice Democratic women candidates, endorsed James last week, which should help her extend her fundraising lead over the rest of the Democratic field.

Dave Bushaw is running as an independent.

Nunn co-sponsors two-year extension of ACA subsidies

Congress is nowhere close to a deal on tax credits for health insurance Americans buy through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. We mentioned in November that Nunn had come out in favor of extending those subsidies for one year. Last week he co-sponsored a two-year extension bill.

He’s clearly very worried about this issue. Here’s what Nunn told the Des Moines Register:

“Iowans deserve affordable health care coverage, but we can’t keep asking taxpayers to bankroll a broken system,” Nunn said in a statement. “This bill offers a commonsense bridge by protecting working Iowans from premium spikes while holding insurers accountable and cracking down on fraud. It’s the kind of bipartisan fix we need for short-term stability so that we can negotiate long-term reform.”

Ty Rushing reported for Iowa Starting Line that just last month, Nunn agreed with a Newsmax interviewer that Republicans should let the subsidies expire. So his transformation has been very rapid.

Even in the unlikely event that Congress approves a fix, it’s too late to affect next year’s health insurance premiums. I expect lots of campaign ads next year featuring people who either dropped their coverage or are paying several times more for health insurance.

I didn’t have time to mention these numbers on the air, but the Cedar Rapids Gazette quoted Phil Jeneary, executive director of Iowans for Affordable Healthcare (a nonpartisan group):

“For example, a family of four earning about 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $64,000) would see their monthly health care cost increase by nearly $250,” Jeneary said. “A couple making around 450 percent of the federal poverty level (about $95,000) would face a monthly rate increase from $652 to $1,659 — an increase close to $1,000. These increases could make health coverage much less affordable and may lead some Iowans to forgo necessary care or coverage.”

Other Iowans in Congress not keen on extending subsidies

The Cedar Rapids Gazette asked other members of the Iowa delegation about this issue. None of them took Nunn’s position on extending the enhanced subsidies.

IA-04’s Randy Feenstra characteristically evaded the question with buzzwords about “lowering health care premiums, increasing access to affordable insurance, and protecting our rural hospitals.”

Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst depicted the enhanced subsidies as “handouts to insurance companies” and “corporate welfare.” Hinson said she favors directing government funds directly to consumers through Health Savings Accounts or something similar. She claimed that would protect consumer choice without subsidizing wealthy individuals or insurers.

A statement from Miller-Meeks bashed the “Unaffordable Care Act,” saying it has increased premiums and profits for insurers. “As a physician, I’m fighting for reforms that put patients and their doctors ahead of profits and create a system that truly serves those who depend on it.”

Although many Republicans are worried about fallout from voters next year, Politico quoted an astute observation from GOP strategist Stan Barnes: “No one wants a primary challenge where the accusation is, ‘You supported Obamacare.’”

Assuming Congress doesn’t approve any deal to extend the subsidies, we could see tens of thousands of Iowans drop their health insurance and many others pay double or triple to stay covered. I don’t know whether it will be helpful for Nunn to say he tried to support a bipartisan bill, or whether he will be no better off than if he had taken the Hinson/Miller-Meeks position.

Iowans don’t sign discharge petition on stock trading ban

A few weeks ago House members forced a vote on releasing the Epstein files, over the objections of Republican leadership. There’s a new effort to force a vote on a stock trading ban for members of Congress. And Iowa’s delegation is not signing on, even though Nunn and Miller-Meeks have been vocal supporters of prohibiting members from buying or selling individual stocks.

Above all else, Iowa Republicans are loyal to House leaders. That means not signing a discharge petition which could allow rank and file members to bring the stock trading ban to the floor.

The Iowa Democratic Party is already making this an issue, with state party chair Rita Hart saying in a recent news release, “Mariannette Miller-Meeks claims she supports a stock trading ban, but refuses to do anything about it. Miller-Meeks should put her money where her mouth is and explain to Iowans why she refuses to take the simplest, bare minimum action.”

If Congress fails to act, this issue could come up in next year’s campaigns. However, since no one in the Iowa delegation has been trading individual stocks while in office, I don’t think it would be as salient as a campaign issue.

The latest taxpayer-funded ads for Miller-Meeks

We spent a couple of minutes on my exclusive reporting from this weekend about how Miller-Meeks has allocated part of her Congressional office budget to social media and radio ads featuring President Donald Trump.

To be clear: this advertising is legal. But it’s an unusual way for a member of Congress to deploy taxpayer funds. (None of the other Iowans in Congress have used their franking funds for radio ads like these.) Miller-Meeks’ campaign was sitting on more than $2.6 million as of September 30. She could spend campaign funds on this kind of commercial. You can learn more from my post:

It’s notable that Miller-Meeks’ office is running these radios ads primarily on stations that reach a conservative-leaning audience. Before the 2022 and 2024 general elections, she placed taxpayer-funded ads on a wider range of stations. I perceive she is worried about her GOP primary against David Pautsch, a MAGA Republican who gained 44 percent of the vote in the 2024 primary to represent IA-01.

Pautsch told me last month he’s committed to running again, and he’s upbeat about his chances, even though he knows he will be outspent again. I do think Miller-Meeks is strongly favored but after the 2024 primary result, you can’t count Pautsch out.

Turnout may be a lot higher next June because of the open races for governor and U.S. Senate. I’m not sure whether Miller-Meeks or Pautsch would benefit more from a higher-turnout environment.

Hinson defends strikes on Venezuelan boats

Hinson doesn’t allow me to participate in her regular conference calls with reporters, but according to other news reports, she said Friday that she supports the Trump administration “going on the offense here to meaningfully counter narcoterrorism and save lives” by striking boats off the coast of Venezuela. She claimed the attacks are “about protecting and saving lives,” because illegal drugs like fentanyl and cocaine have “killed more Americans than any terrorist group ever has.”

There are big questions about whether these strikes are legal, without Congressional authorization. No one credibly claims there’s fentanyl on these boats, and the administration has produced little evidence of cocaine. Some experts have suggested the boats were not headed to the U.S.

Hinson characterized criticism of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as partisan attacks.

Ernst defends boat strikes…

Senator Ernst was in California this past weekend for a defense forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. She said that while she is not a lawyer, she believes the boat strikes are constitutional, because the president has authority “to go after what he deems as an imminent threat to the United states of America.”

During the same panel discussion, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia raised questions about the legality of those strikes with no public hearing or vote in Congress about the operations off the coast of Venezuela. He said Congress has not authorized force against narcotraffickers.

Ernst would like to see more oversight from the Senate Armed Services Committee and “greater transparency with members of Congress.” When Admiral Frank M. Bradley came to the Capitol last week, only select members of committees were able to question him about the operations in the south Caribbean. Ernst would like to see more members of Congress involved in such hearings, even if they need to be held in the secure facility known as the SCIF.

…but dodges question about confirming Hegseth

At that same forum at the Reagan Library, the moderator asked Ernst if, knowing what she knows now, she would vote to confirm Hegseth as secretary of defense. She dodged the question, saying: “I’m not going to answer it in front of all these good people. But there are some frustrations that exist out there.”

There was no follow-up to those layers of passive voice. Why are people frustrated? Does Ernst share those concerns? Who knows?

Remember, Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote on Hegseth, so every Republican who voted to confirm him—including Grassley and Ernst—cast the decisive vote.

Although Ernst didn’t criticize the Trump administration explicitly, she did sound a note of caution about our current foreign policy. She argued that many countries see the U.S. as a leader and “we need to continue to foster those relationships,” because there will be times in the future when we need those partners.

On a related note, Grassley told reporters during a conference call last week that he didn’t see an inspector general’s report on “Signalgate” as condemning Hegseth.

Prominent Iowa House Dems back Trone Garriott in IA-03

State Senator Sarah Trone Garriott rolled out a new batch of endorsements last week. Two of her newest public supporters serve with State Representative Jennifer Konfrst in the Iowa House.

I don’t know how many voters care about endorsements, but insiders definitely noticed that Iowa House Minority Leader Brian Meyer and State Representative Megan Srinivas are backing Trone Garriott.

In the spring, Konfrst stepped down as minority leader to focus on her Congressional campaign. Meyer defeated Lindsay James (who had been the second-ranking Iowa House Democrat and a close Konfrst ally).

The quotes from Meyer and Srinivas, which you can read here, reinforce the electability argument Trone Garriott has been making for months: she shows up for people and knows how to win tough races.

In May, three Democrats who had served with Trone Garriott in the Iowa Senate (Molly Donahue, Claire Celsi, and former Senate Minority leader Pam Jochum) endorsed Konfrst for the IA-03 primary. That’s also very unusual.

I don’t see many policy differences between the two leading contenders for the nomination. Some of the animosity may date back to 2023, when the Senate Democrats voted out Zach Wahls as minority leader. (Trone Garriott backed Wahls.)

Xavier Carrigan is also seeking the nomination in IA-03, running on what you might call a Bernie Sanders platform. He’s definitely a long-shot candidate in the primary.

Zach Lahn lands “MAHA” endorsement

The Republican candidates for governor are competing for the Make America Healthy Again or MAHA part of the GOP base. And last week a group called MAHA Action endorsed Zach Lahn for governor.

I’ve never heard of this group and have no idea how influential they are. Lahn was happy to spread the word about this endorsement on social media. I’m intrigued by how much of his messaging targets “Big Ag” and “Big Pharma,” which you don’t often hear from Republican candidates at any level. For example, he has called out monopolies selling seeds and fertilizer to farmers, as well as out-of-state investors who “keep our young farmers off of the ground,” “raise our rental rates,” and “inflate the valuations.”

GOP candidates praise panel vote on Hepatitis B vaccine

When people think of the MAHA movement, opposition to vaccines comes to mind. Last week Lahn and another Republican candidate for governor, Adam Steen, praised the vote by a CDC panel to stop recommending Hepatitis B shots for newborns.

The public health community has mostly condemned the action, noting that childhood and teenage infections with Hepatitis B have dropped by 99 percent since 1991, when the CDC began recommending a dose of this vaccine at birth. If vaccinations drop, some children who become infected will develop liver disease or liver cancer later in life.

In Facebook posts, Lahn praised the move as “Common sense” and a “MAHA Win,” while Steen thanked President Trump “for stepping up and doing what’s right! MAHA!”

By the way, Steen was at Mar-a-Lago this past weekend for a Turning Point USA event. He posted on Facebook, “Thrilled to be in West Palm Beach this weekend! It’s time we stand up and step out and partner with organizations like TPUSA - as your Governor, I will be the strongest advocate for TPUSA this state has ever seen.”

Two other GOP contenders for governor have also supported anti-vax policies. Former State Representative Brad Sherman was outspoken on the issue in the Iowa House, and State Representative Eddie Andrews has also supported bills that restrict vaccines. This year, he led efforts to pass a bill that prohibits teenagers from getting the cancer-preventing HPV vaccine without parental approval.

Roby Smith seeking second term as state treasurer

Last week, Republican Roby Smith confirmed he will seek re-election as state treasurer. I must admit, I thought he had already confirmed he was running for that office again in the spring, when he ruled out running for governor.

Smith won narrowly over long-serving Democratic incumbent Mike Fitzgerald in 2022. Before that he served three terms in the Iowa Senate, representing a district in the Quad Cities area.

There’s no announced Democratic candidate for this race. The state treasurer campaign typically attracts little attention, and I would guess that the outcome of the governor’s race will be important for Smith’s prospects.

Bird announces “completed work in all 99 Iowa counties”

Attorney General Brenna Bird announced last Monday that she “has completed work in all 99 Iowa counties,” “holding roundtable discussions, working with law enforcement and prosecutors, touring businesses, and holding community conversations.”

These were not campaign events. To my knowledge, none were announced in advance. I’m not sure sure how many (if any) were open to the public. My emails to the spokesperson for the Attorney General’s office went unanswered.

There’s a really big contrast between Bird’s 99-county tour and some of the other town halls we’ve talked about this year. I’ll be interested to see whether Democratic challenger Nate Willems does more public town halls next year.

No consensus for Iowa Democrats on 2028 caucuses

The Iowa Democratic Party sought input from Democrats about how they want to approach the 2028 caucuses. About 750 people completed the survey, and the results showed no consensus about whether Iowa Democrats should follow the Democratic National Committee’s calendar or go rogue.

About 65 percent of respondents want Iowa to hold a presidential nominating contest sometime in the early window (that is, before Super Tuesday). Brianne Pfannenstiel covered this story for the Des Moines Register, and John Deeth (who has organized caucuses for many years in Johnson County) wrote a good piece about it. Excerpt:

I don’t envy Rita Hart and the rest of the party’s leadership. The outcome of the survey shows a sharp and nearly even division. There’s an almost dead even split between respondents who want to accept the DNC’s calendar decisions (51.7%) and those who support some version of going rogue (48.8%). No matter what IDP does, nearly half of the activists are going to be unhappy.

About 75 percent said the party should “maximize participation or provide accommodations for Iowans who cannot participate on caucus night.” That would require some kind of absentee process.

The Iowa Democratic Party will submit a waiver seeking permission from the Democratic National Committee to hold an early caucus, but it seems obvious that national Democrats have no interest in that.

First “Center for Intellectual Freedom” event mostly shielded from public

The University of Iowa’s new Center for Intellectual Freedom held its first major event on Friday and Saturday. It didn’t attract a large audience, and that seems to have been by design.

State Representative Dave Jacoby, who represents the Coralville area and serves on the Iowa House Higher Education Committee, was not invited and posted on Facebook that it “Took 6 phone calls, 4 emails, and repeated texts to be allowed in this ‘public’ meeting.” There were a lot of empty chairs in the room.

Jacoby posted the program, which declared that most of the proceedings would happen under “Chatham House rules.” That’s a fairly obscure British reference, which means that you can describe broadly what people talked about, but you can’t quote speakers or their affiliations.

Nothing says “intellectual freedom” like discouraging people from quoting what was said at a public meeting! I was pleased to see that the journalists covering this event from the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Iowa Capital Dispatch, and other news organizations didn’t honor that request. They reported various newsworthy comments, and named the speakers.

Based on comments from State Representative Taylor Collins, new Iowa Board of Regents President Robert Cramer, and Regent Christine Hensley, it sounds like the Iowa legislature will attempt more political interference with the state universities during the 2026 legislative session.

An Iowa Supreme Court win for Rob Sand

We had a few minutes to talk about a fascinating Iowa Supreme Court decision from Friday. Six justices unanimously held that the State Auditor’s office can represent itself in litigation with the city of Davenport. The Attorney General’s office had argued that it should represent state entities in court, but the justices found there was a conflict because Attorney General Bird and State Auditor Rob Sand disagreed about the legal arguments about the auditor’s authority to review confidential material.

This relates to the auditor’s office special investigation of what happened in Davenport in 2023. The city agreed to pay settlements to former employees totaling around $2 million without council approval. (Justice Thomas Waterman recused himself from the case, probably because the Lane Waterman law firm has represented the city of Davenport for many years.)

A Scott County District Court judge found the auditor’s office could access attorney-client privileged material and wanted to review records in his chambers to determine what could be handed over. The city appealed.

I’ve never heard of anything like this happening: An assistant attorney general prepared a brief, which the auditor’s office signed off on it three days before it was due. Then, the night before the deadline, the chief deputy attorney called the auditor’s chief counsel John McCormally to say they were going to file a different brief, not making the same arguments.

The auditor’s office moved to strike the attorney general’s brief and then wrote their own brief explaining why the District Court’s ruling should be upheld and they should have access to material otherwise protected by attorney-client privilege.

Bird didn’t want to put that argument before the Iowa Supreme Court, on the grounds that it could be adverse to the state’s interest in other cases. But a basic principle of legal representation is that an attorney should zealously represent the client’s interests–not affected by other clients they may represent.

You can read the Iowa Supreme Court ruling here.

Sand said in a statement, “The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision affirms what the State Auditor’s Office has emphasized all along - that taxpayers in Davenport, and across the state, deserve transparency and accountability. It also reinforces that the Iowa Attorney General cannot unilaterally silence other constitutional officers or deny them access to the courts.”

Des this mean the State Auditor’s office will be able to access all of the city’s records on the settlements? Not necessarily. The Iowa Supreme Court will hear this case on the merits next year. Friday’s ruling means that the auditor’s office will be able to represent itself, and the attorney general’s office will be able to file an amicus brief arguing that the auditor should not have access to attorney-client privileged material.

State auditors are able to review lot of records that would normally be considered confidential. I wouldn’t want to guess how the Iowa Supreme Court will come down on whether Sand’s office should be able to review city attorneys’ advice on these settlements.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading or listening!