Anybody else heard the radio and TV ads talking about the two “risky” questions you’ll find on the back of your ballot on election day?
The first “risky” proposition the ad talks about is the constitutional convention. The announcer tells us that that “out of state special interests” want to interfere in Iowa politics, and allowing them to do so would be too “risky”.
Okay, one of the biggest reasons why people are advocating for a constitutional convention is because of the same-sex marriage issue. A constitutional convention would be the quickest way to pass a marriage amendment. If you remember, the touchy-feely One Iowa ad that ran right after the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision warned about “outsiders” wanting to interfere with freedom in Iowa.
So, what is the average viewer to conclude? Probably that whoever is sponsoring these new ads warning us about this “risky” constitutional convention is pro-gay marriage, just like One Iowa, right?
But then you hear at the end of the ad that it is paid for by the Iowa Farm Bureau.
Either Farm Bureau is pro-gay marriage, or they are doing a crappy job of explaining why they are so opposed to a constitutional convention. Or maybe they really don’t want people to start thinking about why Farm Bureau would be opposed to a constitutional convention.
So, why on earth does Farm Bureau care so much about opposing a constitutional convention? They sure don’t tell you in their ads. They just say it is “risky.”
Wow. Thanks for the wealth of information.
After asking a few people who are in the know, it seems that Farm Bureau fears out-of-state environmental activists would try to influence a constitutional convention in an effort to push for things like local control of farming regulations. I sympathize with this fear. With so many farms crossing municipal and county lines, 99 or more sets of regulations would just be an unworkable nightmare for farmers.
But why can’t Farm Bureau just be honest about their concerns? Why do they have to hide the ball? One of my biggest pet peeves in politics is hidden agendas, and Farm Bureau is very guilty of that with these ads.
And the worst part is that they are playing deceptive political games at the expense of other issues vital to the social fabric of our state. Frankly, I think the way they have played their cards in this situation is shameful.
I almost forgot to talk about Farm Bureau’s second “risky” idea discussed in their ads, which is the Conservation Trust Fund. If this amendment is passed, it would require that a certain portion of any future sales tax increases go into a designated fund which would pay for nature trails and parks and such. Unfortunately, the down side of this provision is that, if the legislature knows that a portion of a proposed tax increase is off limits to them, that just means higher tax increases when they do happen.
I understand why people would be worried by this amendment, but I find it ironic that Farm Bureau is so worked up over this issue that it needs to run ads opposing it when you consider that this very amendment was approved in the last two legislative sessions, and according to Kathie Obradovich, Farm Bureau never said a word against it before now.
So, for more than two years, Farm Bureau knew this amendment was coming, and only now do they decide to run a blitz of ads against it where they also throw the constitutional convention under the bus.
Hmmm… seems like Farm Bureau’s decision to blow this amendment off until now could be considered “risky.” The people at Farm Bureau were asleep at the switch, and now they are overreacting and throwing a good idea like the constitutional convention under the bus.
Whoever is making the political decisions at the Iowa Farm Bureau needs to be fired
blog comments powered by Disqus