Iowa - U.S. Senate and House Candidate Endorsements based on drug war policy reform Note: This is an old Voting Guide. Go to the New Drug WarRant.net Voting Guide Make a difference in Iowa Drug WarRant is providing information to help you make decisions on voting and supporting candidates. Be aware that the information provided here ONLY relates to drug policy reform, and there are other reasons to vote for a candidate. However, drug policy reform is a critical issue, and one that is too often neglected by candidates, unless the voters make it critical. Below each candidate, you will see information about their drug policy reform views and/or voting record. (see the criteria at right for definitions). A red check mark is a Drug WarRant endorsement. A vote for them will be a vote for drug policy reform. In some cases there may be multiple good options. In other cases, there just isn't a good candidate. More endorsements will come as the election nears. If you have additional information about a candidate's drug policy positions, please contact Drug WarRant. If you don't know your district, go to Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code to find out your district and detailed information on all the candidates. Criteria 1. The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. Not all candidates have answered the questionaire. For the purposes of Drug WarRant's endorsements, we have focused on the following specific items from the NPAT: NPAT Drugs: Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding drugs. Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. Expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs. Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes. Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Eliminate federal funding for programs associated with the "war on drugs." Other or expanded principles For the purposes of endorsement, clearly the most important areas are "c, d, and f." A candidate with all three is gold. Selection "a" is a negative factor (although some consider this only for violent or major drug dealers). Selection "e" should be negative, but is confusing. There are some candidates who have an enlightened view of drug policy, who still choose "e" simply because of the heightened border concerns since 9/11, so there may be more involved in that response. At a minimum, a candidate should have chosen "d." The choice of "c" and/or "f" add greatly to their attractiveness. NPAT Colombia funding: Should the United States increase its financial support to Colombia to combat "the war on drugs"? "No" is the preferred answer here (at a minimum -- in fact, the answer should be to reduce funding, rather than just not increasing it). It is possible that someone could claim they are for increased funding to Colombia, but not for spraying or military purposes, but rather humanitarian purposes -- this seems a stretch, however, so I am looking for a solid "No" here. 2. The Hinchey Amendment. The incumbents have had two opportunities (2003/2004) to vote on an amendment that would stop the federal government from interfering with medical marijuana in states where it is legal. There was no legitimate reason to vote against this (and it was a bipartisan amendment), so a "no" vote is generally an indication of ignorance, or being in the pocket of the drug warriors. The proper response is: "Hinchey: Yes/Yes." 3. Other criteria. Where there is useful information from campaign web sites or news reports, those details are added here. If you have additional information (preferably with links), please let me know. US Senate Charles E. 'Chuck' Grassley (R) Incumbent No NPAT Arthur A. Small (D) NPAT Drugs: b,c,d; NPAT Colombia funding: No Edwin B. Fruit (Socialist Workers Party) No NPAT Daryl A. Northrop (Iowa Green Party) NPAT Drugs: b,c,d; NPAT Colombia funding: No Christy Ann Welty (L) No NPAT Toss-up between Small and Northrop US House 1 Bill Gluba (D) NPAT Drugs: b,d,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes Denny Heath (Nominated by Petition) NPAT Drugs: b,c,d,e; NPAT Colombia funding: No James A. 'Jim' Nussle (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,b,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes; Hinchey: No/No Mark Nelson (L) No NPAT Heath is the clear choice, here. US House 2 Dave Franker (D) NPAT Drugs: b,e; NPAT Colombia funding: No Answer James A. 'Jim' Leach (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: b,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes; Hinchey: No/Yes Kevin D. Litten (L) No NPAT Leach has shown capacity for growth by positively changing his Hinchey vote from 2003 to 2004, but I'm not happy with his stand on Colombia. Franker isn't looking that good, and I don't know enough about Litten. No endorsement at this time. US House 3 Leonard L. Boswell (D) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Stanley J. 'Stan' Thompson (R) NPAT Drugs: a,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes Two bad choices. No endorsement> US House 4 Paul W. Johnson (D) NPAT Drugs: b,d; NPAT Colombia funding: No Thomas P. 'Tom' Latham (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,b,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes; Hinchey: No/No Paul Johnson is the clear choice between these two. US House 5 Steve A. King (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No E. Joyce Schulte (D) No NPAT While Schulte has not said much regarding drug policy, her other policy statements lead me to believe that her views would be far more in line with reform than King's (who did not support the Hinchey amendment). Back to main voting guide page.