Iowa Senate adds restriction on Capitol security video to open records bill
The Iowa Capitol in Des Moines on April 1, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The Iowa Senate amended an open meetings and records bill Thursday to list security camera footage from the Iowa Capitol building as 'confidential records.'
House File 706 is this year's attempt to implement higher penalties and training requirements for Iowa's open meetings and records laws. Fines for violating open meetings laws would increase to between $500 and $2,500 from the current range of between $100 and $500.
Knowing violations of these laws would rise to between $5,000 and $12,500; the current fine is between $1,000 and $2,500. The bill also would require that a member of a government body be removed from office if they engaged in a prior violation of open meetings laws. Additionally, newly elected and appointed public officials would have to complete a training on open records laws when they take office.
The bill passed the House unanimously in March. The measure is largely a response to alleged violations of open records laws by the city of Davenport following a six-story apartment building collapse in 2023 and alleged open meetings law violations regarding the city of Davenport reaching settlement agreements with three city employees without the city council's approval in a public meeting.
Lawmakers also approved similar legislation in 2024, but the bill was vetoed by Gov. Kim Reynolds over language added as a Senate amendment introduced by Sen. Scott Webster, R-Bettendorf, that changed the definition of a 'meeting' of a government body.
Though this language is not present in the 2025 bill, Webster introduced an amendment Thursday that would add two types of information to the list of approved confidential records in Iowa Code — information obtained from security cameras operated by the legislative branch on property owned or leased by the state, and information 'obtained from state employee identification card access systems' for buildings and rooms owned or leased by the state — specifically referring to the Iowa State Capitol.
Webster said this language, approved as an amendment in a 32-15 vote, would prevent people from using open records requests to find 'blind spots' in Capitol security and prevent stalking or harassment of elected officials and government employees.
'If people wanted to cause this harm to the Capital building — to the people's building — wanted to find out and go through all the camera footage to figure out where the blind spots might be in this Capitol, they could do it through an open records (request),' Webster said. 'We're eliminating that availability right now, which makes everybody in this building safer.'
Legislative staff said they are not aware of security camera footage being used to stalk or harass any lawmakers at the Statehouse.
Webster said an agreement was reached with groups like the Freedom of Information Council, the Iowa Newspaper Association and House lawmakers removing restrictions on the Iowa Department of Public Safety footage in an earlier version of the amendment, to ensure access to body camera footage would not be impacted.
But Democrats said the measure would prevent Iowans from accessing public information. Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, said that Iowans, as taxpayers, are paying for lawmakers' and public workers' time at the Iowa State Capitol, and should be able to access footage as requested.
'They're paying the bill to run the camera,' Petersen said. 'They're paying the bill for this beautiful building. Why would we take public access away from them — in an open meetings bill no less? You want to take away public access and say it's because of security — no it's not.'
Webster said security camera footage could still be accessed through subpoenas — court orders to provide information or records — in cases where a person commits a crime in the Capitol building.
Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said the potential use of subpoenas to access these records was an 'excuse' to obscure the limit being put on public access to what happens at the Capitol.
'The average citizen doesn't have access to getting a subpoena, and shouldn't need that access in that manner,' Quirmbach said. 'The bill, as it has been amended, restricts the public access. It is not something that this Legislature should endorse.'
The measure returns to the House for approval of the amendment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
California shifts from Musk glee to Trump dread
The dissolution of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk marriage was enough, for a brief moment, to lift beleaguered California Democrats' spirits. But within 24 hours, the gleeful mood in this heavily Democratic state darkened amid sweeping immigration raids and reports the Trump administration was planning to yank funding from California. The swift reversal was a reminder that, for all the delight Democrats took in a public feud between the president and the world's richest man, a war of words on X is far less consequential than a hostile White House. Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders on Friday quickly returned to a familiar defensive crouch, condemning the White House's reported plan and escalating the standoff by threatening to withhold the money California sends to Washington. 'We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' Newsom said in a post on X. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.' It was unclear on Friday what money the White House might rescind. A spokesperson said no decision had been made. Many Democrats had spent the previous day reveling in the extraordinary break between Trump and his former patron Musk, piling on in a cascade of snarky tweets, triumphant news hits and floor speeches. The joy was especially palpable in California, where Democrats watched Musk transform from a source of pride to a conservative nemesis eager to attack the state that helped make him. The dunking contest seemed to open new political possibilities, as Musk amplified Democrats' case against tariffs and the GOP 'megabill' being debated in Congress — two central features of the president's agenda. But the respite from unforgiving news cycles proved short-lived. And it vindicated warnings from some Democrats that the Trump-Musk feud was distracting from the more serious threats emanating from Washington. For Rep. Dave Min, who is preparing to defend a frontline Orange County seat that could help determine control of the House, Thursday was all about Musk: He excoriated the Tesla executive in a preplanned floor speech, and joined the mockery on X. On Friday, Min was scrambling to confront what he called a 'blatantly lawless' push to claw back funds. 'These cuts appear to be clearly and on their face illegal and motivated by vengeance and political retribution aimed at our state,' Min wrote in a letter to the White House. Rep. Jimmy Gomez went from tweaking Trump with a Taylor Swift meme to sounding the alarm about immigration arrests throughout Los Angeles, a resolutely Democratic county, that followed Trump's vow to target 'sanctuary' jurisdictions that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Union officials said SEIU California President David Huerta was detained and injured during a protest of immigration raids, drawing condemnations from a broad swathe of elected officials (ICE did not respond to a request for comment). Californians were simultaneously rallying in San Francisco against federal plans to rename a naval ship named after the late gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Against the backdrop of that multifront defensive, the feuding between Trump and Musk became a secondary concern, at best. Newsom passed on a chance to swipe at Musk, with whom he has a long and complicated relationship, telling reporters during an unrelated news conference on Thursday that he hoped people mesmerized by 'what Elon Musk tweeted today and what Trump said tomorrow can focus on what matters' — although Newsom's press office still used a Trump-Musk breakup reference to tease the news conference, Similarly, Rep. Laura Friedman called the Trump-Musk meltdown a distraction from the White House's agenda to remake the federal government. 'They are cutting health care from Americans, they are destroying people's ability to go to the doctor and get health care coverage, they are making life more expensive for everyday people through tariffs,' Friedman said. 'I hope people see through the entertainment value of this — it is funny, but this is harmful to our country in so many ways.' Few were laughing by Friday afternoon. Instead, leading California Democrats were once again girding for battle with an administration that has made a habit of threatening to block money for areas like wildfire recovery, education and law enforcement if California does not change its policies. 'We must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes,' Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a BlueSky post.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill': The Huge Tax and Medicaid Implications You Need to Know
President Donald Trump made extending his tax cuts a central plank of his election campaign. Getty Images President Donald Trump has made the extension of the 2017 tax cuts one of his major second-term economic goals -- you know, aside from all those tariffs -- but as the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill" has moved forward, it's faced major pushback. Some of this opposition might lead to significant changes to the bill and how it might ultimately impact you, especially when it comes to taxes and services like Medicaid. After much back-and-forth, negotiation and failed votes, the bill passed in the House of Representatives by the thinnest margin possible, 215-214-1. The bill is now moving through the Senate, where it is expected to face more alterations before getting across the finish line. While the GOP has been attempting to use the reconciliation process to avoid the bill being filibustered by Democrats, it is still expected to face intra-party dissent similar to what it went through in the House over its cuts either being too severe or not severe enough. Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO and one-time Trump adviser who led the "DOGE" government consolidation efforts, spoke out against the bill in an unsparing fashion in a Tuesday post to X, decrying it as too heavy on spending. This disagreement with Trump and his agenda led to a prolonged public spat between the president and his one-time senior advisor. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Despite the broad nature of the bill, one of its central goals remains the extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Passed for the first time early in his first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as it was officially known, was one of Trump's signature legislative accomplishments and has generally become known as the "Trump tax cuts." Given the nature of how that bill was passed initially, a lot of its provisions are set to expire next year if a new extension isn't passed, so doing just that has unsurprisingly emerged as a major priority for Trump and the GOP-led houses of Congress. The president and his allies have also tried to claim that his aggressive tariff agenda could help offset the extension of the tax cuts, although, as we've touched on before at CNET, that is just one of the often-contradictory stated goals for the tariffs. Details about the budget bill Republicans have emerged in the past few weeks as it moved through the House Ways and Means Committee approval process. The Congressional Budget Office, an agency that provides estimates about the economic impacts of budgetary bills that is not affiliated with any party, estimated that the cuts called for in this bill would cost millions of people their health insurance and food benefits. The proposal initially failed to pass a vote in the House, leading to its cuts for Medicaid becoming even heavier. All this comes in addition to the longstanding criticism from Democrats and other critics that Trump's tax cuts disproportionately help the wealthiest Americans more than the working class. While there is truth to that argument, and to the Republican counter that the tax cuts would provide some help to taxpayers at all incomes, the new proposed cuts unveiled this week have given more weight to the notion that they will be more harmful for the least wealthy Americans. For all the details about what extending the tax cuts will actually mean and what the current terms mean for things like Medicaid, keep reading. For more, find out if Trump could actually abolish the Department of Education. How will the budget bill impact Medicaid? According to the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office mentioned at the start of this piece, at least 7.6 million Americans would lose Medicaid health insurance under the provisions in the budget proposal. That's nearly 11% of the 70 million Americans who are currently insured by Medicaid. The proposal would, among other things, require people without dependent children or a disability to meet an 80-hour-a-month work requirement to qualify for Medicaid and increase the frequency with which people will need to confirm their continued eligibility. These new requirements were originally set to take effect in 2029 under the bill's failed House version, but they were moved forward to 2026 in the bill's passed version. What would extending the Trump tax cuts mean? While the phrase "Trump tax cuts" has become a common media shorthand for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the current conversation around it might suggest that new cuts could be on the way. Although Trump has floated ideas for additional cuts, it's important to note that extending the 2017 provisions would, for the most part, keep tax rates and programs at the levels they've been at since then. So while it may be a better option than having the provisions expire -- which would increase certain tax rates and decrease certain credits -- extending the tax cuts most likely won't change how you've been taxed the past eight years. However, some estimates have predicted that extending the cuts would boost income in 2026, with the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation in particular predicting a 2.9% rise on average, based on a combination of other economic predictions combined with tax rates staying where they are. What would change if the Trump tax cuts expire? Republicans contend that the tax cuts helped a wide swath of Americans, and the Tax Foundation predicted that 60% of tax filers would see higher rates in 2026 without an extension. A big part of that has to do with tax bracket changes. The 2017 provisions lowered the income tax rates across the seven brackets, aside from the first (10%) and the sixth (35%). If the current law expires, those rates would go up by between 1% and 3%. Income limits for each bracket would also revert to pre-2017 levels. Lending credence to the Democrats' counterarguments, these shifts under the Trump tax cuts appeared to be more beneficial to individuals and couples at higher income levels than to those making closer to the average US income. If you're interested in the nitty-gritty numbers, you can check out the Tax Foundation's full breakdown. Another point in Democrats' favor? The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, and unlike many of its other provisions, this one was permanent and won't expire in 2026. What would happen to the standard deduction? This is another area in which a lot of people would be hit hard. The standard deduction lets taxpayers lower their taxable income, as long as they forgo itemizing any deductions. For the 2025 tax year, the standard deduction is $15,000 for individual filers and $30,000 for joint filers. If the tax cuts expire, these numbers will drop by nearly half, down to $8,350 for individuals and $16,700 for joint filers. Under the current reconciliation bill, the deduction would increase to $16,000 for individuals and $32,000 for joint filers, but only through 2028. What would happen to the child tax credit? The child tax credit is one of the most popular credits. Its current levels -- $2,000 per qualifying child, which phases out starting at a gross income of $200,000 for single filers and $400,000 for joint filers -- were actually set by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If an extension or new bill isn't passed, next year the child tax credit would revert to its old levels: $1,000 per child, which starts phasing out at $75,000 for single filers and $110,000 for joint filers. If the current budget bill is implemented, the credit will be upped to $2,500 per child through 2028, before dropping to $2,000 as its new permanent rate. Do the Trump tax cuts really favor the wealthy? Higher-income individuals and couples fared notably better with the changes the Trump tax cuts made to tax brackets. An estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank, found that the poorest 20% of Americans would see only about 1% of the bill's net tax cuts. Numerous similar estimates agree that these small benefits for the poorest taxpayers would be outweighed by rising costs caused by tariffs. Conversely, ITEP's estimate found that the richest 20% of US taxpayers would benefit from around 67% of the bill's net tax cuts, with the richest 5% benefitting from half of them. How much would extending the tax cuts cost? Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Foundation have estimated that the reconciliation bill's tax cut extension would raise the US deficit by $4.5 trillion over the course of 10 years. The Tax Foundation also estimated that it could raise the country's GDP to offset that number, but only by about $710 billion, or about 16% of the deficit increase. For more, see how Trump's tariffs might be affecting the prices of several key products in our daily tracker.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
