Democrat Bob Krause announces run for Iowa's 1st Congressional District
May 29—Bob Krause, a former state legislator, announced this week he will be running for Congress as a Democrat to oust the 1st Congressional District's Republican incumbent, U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. In a May 26 press release, he launched the slogan: "Flip The House With Krause."
To him and his campaign, that rallying cry serves as a reminder to voters that control of the entire U.S. House of Representatives hinges on just a few key races. It also reinforces just how competitive and volatile Iowa's first congressional district has been ever since Miller-Meeks was first elected in 2020.
It was that same year that widespread recounts determined Miller-Meeks won against Democrat Rita Hart by only six votes. In 2024, Miller-Meeks narrowly retained her seat once again, albeit not as close as her race against Hart; Miller-Meeks won against Democrat Christina Bohannan by less than 800 votes.
Republicans in the district were forced to choose between Miller-Meeks and challenger David Pautsch in the primary. Even though Miller-Meeks won with a 12-point lead, Pautsch felt he had a strong showing getting 44 percent of the vote with only six months of work. Pautsch announced in February he's running again.
Which makes Krause the third person to announce a campaign for the seat. Krause believes he can beat the incumbent congresswoman and block President Donald Trump's "destructive agenda to implement a reverse-Robin Hood on our nation" that he alleged will impoverish many Iowans and enrich the very few.
"It is no secret that incumbent Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks votes like Trump's rubber stamp," Krause said in his press release. "Extremists who appear set on destroying our democracy are given a huge institutional advantage simply because she is part of the House GOP.
"That House GOP has surrendered the constitutionally authorized power of Congress and the courts to appropriate, tax and provide for due process of law and public participation through our elected officials. This ceding of power has become simply a slower version of the attempted coup of Jan. 6, 2021."
Krause said he will not remain silent as Trump "bypasses Congress" and dismantles critical programs to Iowa's 1st Congressional District without the consent of elected representatives and due process. The candidate stressed this election is vital "to the future of Iowa and the nation."
If elected, Krause said he would uphold the Constitution and fight for policies that benefit workers, farmers and families. He is in favor of the reversing inequitable tax cuts and preserving Social Security benefits. He also wants to provide essential services for a safe, clean and prosperous environment.
Krause pledged to defend Iowa's education systems, libraries and social safety nets from further erosion.
In the 1970s, Krause served in the Iowa House for six years. He then ran an unsuccessful campaign for state treasurer. In 2010, he ran a campaign in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat race against Chuck Grassley, but he lost to fellow party member Roxanne Conlin, who would lose to the incumbent.
It wasn't the last time Krause tried to run against Grassley. In 2022, he attempted another race but inevitably withdrew after not receiving enough signatures. He needed 3,500 signatures but only acquired around 1,400. He blamed it partly on the precinct caucuses being held virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to his experience as a lawmaker, Krause is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and Iowa Army National Guard. He previously served as a school board member in Waterloo and is president of the Veterans National Recovery Center. He is married to Vicky Krause and has a large, blended family.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The other climate rule Trump's attacks are boosting
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition. With help from Camille von Kaenel, Marie J. French and Caitlin Oprysko THE OTHER CLEAN-CAR LAW: New York lawmakers reeling from Congress' vote to kill California's electric vehicle mandate are eyeballing another Golden State rule to pick up the slack: the low-carbon fuel standard. Fair warning to Democrats considering this route: Things could get bumpy. A yearslong push in Albany to establish New York's version of the controversial program that sets emissions limits for transportation fuels is regaining steam in the wake of Senate votes last month to revoke a trio of EPA waivers that let California — and a dozen states that follow its lead — enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards. We're still waiting for President Donald Trump to sign the resolutions and kick off a court battle that Attorney General Rob Bonta has promised to wage, but New York enviros are already using the moment to lobby for LCFS standards, as POLITICO's Marie J. French reports. 'New York has to lead,' said Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, at a press conference last week. 'We cannot let four years go by without taking real action to transition away from fossil fuels, and Washington, D.C., is not going to help.' New York lawmakers don't need to look particularly hard to find out what sort of headaches they could be in store for if a bill from state Sen. Kevin Parker that would establish the state's clean fuel standard crosses the finish line. (That proposal is awaiting a hearing in New York's Senate Finance Committee and still faces an uphill battle to reach Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk.) Case in point: the bare-knuckled sparring on Friday between moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a Bakersfield Democrat and potential 2026 challenger to Republican Rep. David Valadao, and the California Air Resources Board, which approved amendments last year (still pending approval by the state's Office of Administrative Law) to tighten the stringency of the program — and potentially raise gas prices. Bains called on CARB Chair Liane Randolph to resign after she said at a hearing last week on transportation fuels that the agency doesn't extrapolate on how much consumers pay at the pump because 'in many instances, that would be speculative.' 'It is outrageous the director would pursue such policies without even trying to analyze the impact on prices,' Bains said. The incident is part of the continued fallout from last year's messy reauthorization of the nearly 15-year-old program. The heated debate largely centered on concerns about the rule's potential to raise gas prices, and CARB did itself no favors by initially estimating a 47-cent per gallon hike, before walking that figure back. The backlash against Bains was swift, as Gov. Gavin Newsom and environmental groups rushed to Randolph's defense. 'What's outrageous is the Assemblymember's stunt as she gears up to run for Congress,' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in a statement. Equally important, though, is who was missing from the defense. Business groups that oppose LCFS over affordability concerns, and environmental justice advocates who argue the state should focus on electrification rather than alternative fuels, were nowhere to be found. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas — who established an oversight committee last month, headed by Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson and Assemblymember David Alvarez, to study the LCFS' impact on prices — also stayed out of the squabble, and his spokespeople didn't respond to requests for comment. Those political dynamics are already shaping up in New York, where the state Senate passed an LCFS bill in 2022 that couldn't clear the Assembly. EJ groups came out against the bill last week, writing in a letter that New York can't 'invest in half-measures and failed solutions that burden environmental justice communities.' But New York businesses are backing Parker's bill. The Business Council of New York State, an Albany-based chamber of commerce with over 3,000 members, announced its support in April, arguing that an LCFS rule would allow the state to 'keep open all fuel and technology options' as it attempts to slash greenhouse gas emissions 85 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! SPEAKING OF GAS PRICES: Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton unveiled a plan Monday to lower energy and fuel prices based on dismantling California's climate programs. Hilton, a GOP television personality, released his energy platform the day before he's hosting a forum on fuel prices with former Democratic Majority Leader Gloria Romero, who registered as a Republican last year over issues like gas stove bans. Hilton's to-do list includes his party's top asks: ending the state's 2045 net-zero emissions goal, repealing LCFS and lowering the state gas tax. He's also advocating for nixing the cap-and-trade program Newsom and lawmakers are currently negotiating an extension of. — AN WATER TRUCE: San Diego and Los Angeles are ending 15 years of courtroom fights over the cost of water transfers, citing the need for greater flexibility and collaboration to handle unpredictable supplies caused by climate change. Under a settlement agreement announced Monday, the San Diego County Water Authority will pay the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California a fixed price for water transfers instead of a fluctuating one, which San Diego had repeatedly sued over. The settlement ends an acrimonious chapter in Southern California's water wars that had cost the two agencies tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and driven political battles across regional water boards. It also frees the San Diego County Water Authority — which is currently facing an existential threat because of lower-than-expected water sales — to cut deals with other water agencies to offload some of its unneeded water. San Diego has spent heavily in the past two decades on both importing and desalinating water. Other Southern California communities don't have that same luxury of abundant supplies, with both the Sierra Nevada snowpack and the Colorado River under strain. MWD Board chair Adán Ortega said at a press conference Monday that the settlement agreement would usher in 'a new era of regionalism' that the entire Southwest should recognize. — CvK EAST COAST FOIL: Florida's longtime cautionary tale on property insurance is changing — maybe. After years of massive losses, Florida insurers made a $207 million profit in 2024, Thomas Frank of POLITICO's E&E News reports. Private Florida-based insurers are returning, and the state-run insurer of last-resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corp., is shrinking. The AM Best credit ratings firm credits the turn-around to rate hikes that doubled the average premium between 2021 and 2023 and legal reforms that limited lawsuits by policyholders. California, meanwhile, still hasn't shrunk its own insurer of last-resort or brought back private insurers in any big way, despite setting the stage for increased rate hikes. A STEP TOO FAR: Senate Majority Leader John Thune sidestepped Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to revoke California's vehicle emissions waivers, but he's not willing to do the same for Republicans' budget 'megabill.' 'We're not going there,' Thune said Monday when asked by reporters if overruling MacDonough is under consideration as the Senate crafts its own budget proposal. MacDonough will play the crucial role of deciding what polices can stay in the bill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer predicted that House GOP proposals, like a plan to place limits on the ability of federal judges to enforce contempt citations, will be booted. The parliamentarian question is going to follow Thune, who gave the thumbs-up for the unprecedented move to ignore MacDonough's opinion that Congress can't overturn EPA's waivers empowering California to enforce nation-leading emissions standards. — AN ON HIS OWN: Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is launching his own firm, he told POLITICO's Caitlin Oprysko. Bernhardt was also a longtime Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck lobbyist, including for Westlands Water District. The new Bernhardt Group will primarily provide strategic advice, but may do some lobbying work on an as-needed basis. Bernhardt declined to name any of the new firm's clients. But he said its work won't be limited to natural resources policy and could encompass a number of issues the firm's staff have been involved in, from telecom and privacy to financial services and appropriations. Read more from the interview as well as the full list of people joining him in POLITICO Influence. — The Trump administration is reversing course and keeping eight of the nine USDA field offices it planned to close in California open instead. — Analytics firm First Street forecasts Sacramento will experience some of the country's largest out-migration because of climate risks. — California Democrats want the Trump administration to restaff National Weather Service offices in Sacramento and Hanford that lost the ability to operate 24 hours a day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
White House insists Medicaid policy won't cut people who deserve it
The White House plans to confront resistance to Medicaid cuts from Senate Republicans by arguing that any reductions in coverage would only affect people who didn't deserve it in the first place. A strong bloc of Republicans in the Senate has signaled that they are uncomfortable with Medicaid reductions in the sweeping tax-and-spending bill enacted last month by the House. President Donald Trump's advisers are determined to confront those concerns by claiming that cuts would chiefly target undocumented immigrants and able-bodied people who should not be on Medicaid, according to four administration officials and outside allies granted anonymity to discuss strategy. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said Sunday. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' The megabill would add work requirements to the program and bar undocumented immigrants from getting coverage, among other attempts to tighten eligibility. Those provisions are projected to leave roughly 7.6 million low-income people without health care over the next decade — losses that would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost savings for the program. Contrary to Trump officials' claims, such cuts are widely anticipated to go beyond immigrants and the narrow slice of able-bodied unemployed, according to health experts. The provisions would likely add new layers of paperwork for low-income enrollees, making it more difficult for qualified recipients to stay on the program and pushing otherwise-eligible Americans suddenly out of health coverage. In a POLITICO interview published Sunday, Trump Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz argued the changes would 'future proof' the program, also insisting that "we're not cutting Medicaid." 'There's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children,' Oz said. Trump officials have aggressively pushed that stance in public and private in recent days, insisting that the administration's plan will shield 'deserving' Medicaid recipients like the elderly and disabled, while targeting those who officials have cast as a drain on the nation's safety net. Many of those people gained coverage over the last decade through Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. Republicans have been stung before by their efforts to enact health care cuts, most notably facing massive voter blowback in 2017 that cratered Trump's bid to repeal Obamacare and contributed to widespread losses in the following midterms. But Trump officials and allies argue that voters will support these changes to Medicaid, seeing them less as cuts than tweaks meant to ensure resources go to those who truly need it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' said one of the White House officials. 'So no one is getting cut.' In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump would "protect and preserve Medicaid" by "kicking illegal immigrants off of the program and implementing commonsense work requirements," adding that Americans voted for such policies. The strategy represents a stark messaging shift for a GOP that has long found itself on the defensive in debates over health coverage. And it's an attempt by the White House to mirror the approach Trump has taken on other issues like immigration and trade, casting aside political complexities in favor of portraying them as a simple choice between 'us' and 'them.' Trump has framed his mass deportation campaign as an effort to rid the country of millions of immigrants deemed undeserving of staying in the U.S. He's justified his tariffs as a counter to other countries 'ripping us off' on trade. 'Before, they were taking things away from people,' Thomas Miller, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said of the health messaging shift. 'Now, they're saying they're not deserving.' In the Senate, Vought and White House legislative affairs chief James Braid have taken the lead in talks with Republican lawmakers, the White House official said. Trump has also dialed up a handful of senators over the last week, said another White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, ahead of a sprint in the Senate to pass its version of the megabill in a matter of weeks. The success of that effort could hinge on a handful of GOP senators who are skeptical of any Medicaid policies that could be interpreted as cuts, especially after the House added last-minute health care provisions into its bill that ballooned the predicted coverage losses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have expressed reservations about Medicaid work requirements, while some others have warned more generally about the prospect of cutting the program. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), perhaps the most outspoken Republican on the issue, said Monday in a post on X that Trump had assured him 'NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS' will be in the bill. But rather than change course on policy, Trump officials and other Hill Republicans have instead signaled a preference for winning votes by redefining what qualifies as a cut. In a midday missive on Monday, the White House touted its push to remove roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants as key to strengthening Medicaid benefits 'for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That strident approach has prompted blowback from patient advocates and health industry groups across the spectrum, and even bewildered some Republicans who questioned the wisdom of making any changes to a program as politically delicate as Medicaid, especially in the red states of Trump's base. 'The fact remains that a great many Trump voters are on Medicaid, particularly in rural areas,' said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, adding it's unclear whether voters will buy Republicans' assertion that some cuts shouldn't qualify as actual cuts.'If no one loses coverage, how are you going to cut $500 billion?' Still, Trump aides remain confident they can bring both the Senate and the broader public around to their view. Much of the Medicaid-cautious contingent in the Senate — including Hawley — have already said they're okay with work requirements, drawing the line instead at broader funding cuts that might directly impact health providers and state budgets. The White House in the meantime has salivated over a fight with Democrats over coverage for undocumented immigrants, viewing it as another politically advantageous front in its immigration offensive. As for work requirements, Republicans pointed to polling that has consistently shown most Americans support them in theory — even despite the warnings about how it's likely to play out. 'It's a simple, clear message to say we're only taking away coverage from people who are not working,' said Miller. 'You don't get down to the granular details of, what does that actually mean in practice?' Megan Messerly and Ben Leonard contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nevada on track to up DUI penalties to maximum 25 years in prison
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — An amended version of Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill would increase the maximum amount of prison time for a DUI driver who kills to 25 years. As initially written, Senate Bill 457 would also change Nevada law to charge DUI drivers who kill with second-degree murder. A version of the bill amended Monday would increase Nevada's DUI-with-death penalty to a maximum of 25 years, an increase from the current 20 years. As written, Nevada's DUI-with-death law carries a potential prison sentence of 2-20 years. However, a bipartisan 1995 law requires a judge to sentence a person to a minimum and maximum sentence, meaning in cases of DUI with death, the maximum amount of time a defendant will spend in prison without a parole hearing is eight years. The 8 News Now Investigators have found most drivers who kill serve those eight years, not 20. Should Lombardo's bill pass as amended, a DUI driver who kills could serve the minimum two years in prison or up to 10 years before they are released or go before the parole board. In essence, the maximum-minimum amount of time to be served would become 10 years — a change from the current eight years. However, a driver could, in theory, serve all 25 years. A 10-to-25-year sentence aligns with the penalties for second-degree murder. If a DUI driver who kills has prior convictions, the minimum would be increased from two years to five years, the amendment said. Senate Bill 457 passed the Nevada Senate with the amendment in a 20-1 vote. Democratic State Sen. James Ohrenschall was the only dissenting vote. Senate Bill 304, which would amend the state's vehicular homicide law to include all DUIs involving death, appeared unlikely to pass Monday. The proposal would carry a possible sentence of 10 to 25 years or 10 to life, also the same as the state's second-degree murder statute. The legislative session ends at midnight Tuesday. Lawmakers will not reconvene, except for special circumstances at the request of the governor, until February 2027. Opponents of the governor's crime bill, including the ACLU of Nevada, warn that other components in it violate a person's constitutional rights. Since February, the 8 News Now Investigators have explored Nevada DUI laws, including the fact that lawmakers proposed no immediate changes after a DUI driver killed two state troopers investigating a second DUI driver. Nevada prosecutors, including the Clark County District Attorney's Office, have tried to charge DUI drivers who kill a person and who speed and who drive with no care for another person's life, with murder, but the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled the DUI with death law is more appropriate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
