The IDP’s statement came as Walker visited West Des Moines on Wednesday for a fundraising dinner benefiting the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank located in Washington, D.C. Branstad attended the event.

Walker gained national attention earlier this year when he pushed a bill stripping some collective bargaining rights for public workers and requiring them to pay more for health insurance, among other things.

IDP Chairwoman Sue Dvorksy said Walker “brings a familiar anti-worker agenda that is nearly identical to that of Governor Terry Branstad.”

“While Scott Walker’s attack on working men and women in his state drew national attention, Governor Branstad and Iowa Republicans were pushing their own anti-worker bill. If passed, it would have ended decades of important protections for workers across the state,” Dvorsky said. “Throughout his career, Governor Branstad has failed to support working men and women across this state, just as Scott Walker is doing in his.”

But Branstad called the IDP’s statements “an unfair and inappropriate characterization,” and said both he and Walker are trying to deal with tough state budgets.

“He, like me and a lot of other governors, inherited a real financial mess and is making tough decisions to try to get his state on the right track, and I think the people of Wisconsin can make their judgment on their governor,” Branstad said. “And I feel confident to stand for the people of Iowa and point out what we’re doing in the state of Iowa to bring more business and jobs and to increase opportunities for workers in this state.”

Democrats in Wisconsin have undertaken an effort to recall Walker. In an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said Walker “has torn our state apart.” Feingold is founder of Progressives United, a 501(c)4 organization.

“Since taking office in January, Scott Walker has attacked the rights of Wisconsin workers, passed an undemocratic voter ID bill, and done the bidding of the Koch brothers and his deep-pocketed corporate backers at every turn,” Feingold wrote.

Feingold asked for donations to help recall Walker, saying he’s “governed so extremely and so recklessly, going right at the throat of working people when our families are suffering, that we have no choice.”

“Enough is enough. The people of Wisconsin can’t afford four full years of Scott Walker as our governor — and it’s time for us to recall him,” he said.

About 100 people gathered outside the Sheraton Hotel where Walker was speaking to express their displeasure with him, Branstad, and what they see as a nationwide attack on workers’ rights.

The Heritage Foundation event was closed to the media, but a video is expected to be available online on Thursday.

In an email message sent to supporters Tuesday morning, Baldwin cited Wall Street reform, economic justice for the middle class and withdrawal from Afghanistan as issues on which her campaign will focus.

“I’ve decided to run for the U.S. Senate because I believe Wisconsin families need a senator who will work hard to deliver results for the middle class — a leader with the courage to do what’s right, no matter how tough the odds or how powerful the special interests we have to fight,” she wrote.

“I can’t wait to take my fight to the Senate: a fight to grow our economy, protect seniors, force Wall Street to clean up its act, and bring our troops home from Afghanistan. And I can’t wait to see you on the trail as we bring our campaign to every corner of Wisconsin.”

Baldwin is the first openly gay woman in the U.S. House. And, if she wins the 2012 race for U.S. Senate, she will become the first openly gay person to serve in that chamber.

“I know that, in this campaign, we’ll be up against some powerful special interests. But I’ve beaten the odds before. All my life, the naysayers have told me that I can’t win because I’m a progressive … because I’m a woman … even because I’m a lesbian. And I’ve proven them wrong because I’ve had rock-solid supporters like you standing with me,” she said.

On the GOP side, several individuals have been rumored as potential candidates — including former Gov. and 2008 presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. Former Wisconsin Rep. Mark Neumann, however, is the only person to make it official.

Former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, who was rumored to be considering a run, recently announced that he would not seek any elected office in 2012.

Baldwin’s candidacy has already drawn support from EMILY’s List president Shephanie Schriock, who labeled Baldwin in a prepared statement as a “dedicated and hardworking leader.”

“In office she has tirelessly advocated for affordable access to women’s health care and equal rights for all Americans. Tammy has earned a strong economic record in the House — standing for jobs and small business against corporate lobbying interests and unfair trade deals. She has consistently spoken out against the GOP war on women and we need her strong voice in the Senate. We’re thrilled she’s thrown her hat in the ring and are excited that this race is starting,” Schriock said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, also put out a statement, saying, “Tammy Baldwin’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate is monumental for both the state of Wisconsin and the country’s LGBT community. Tammy has proven herself as an effective legislator over the course of her 13 years in Congress and this campaign will be a top priority for the Human Rights Campaign.”

Baldwin’s introductory message is embedded below:

Russ Feingold

“This was a difficult decision, as I thoroughly enjoyed my tenure in the State Senate and the U.S. Senate, and I know that progressives are eager to reverse some of the outrageous policies being pursued by corporate interests at both the state and federal levels. I am also well aware that I have a very strong standing in polls should I choose to run again for the U.S. Senate or in a recall election for governor. After 28 continuous years as an elected official, however, I have found the past eight months to be an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective,” wrote Feingold.

The Wisconsinite lost his reelection bid during the 2010 elections, and announced in February that he had formed a grassroots PAC, Progressives United, which is primarily intended to push back against the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.

He has also been teaching law at Marquette University Law School — something he told supporters “was a joy” — and has penned a book that is slated for publishing next February. It traces how the U.S. has “too often lost our way as a nation in responding to the 9/11 attacks and related issues,” and he plans to speak throughout the nation on the topic in 2012.

“The one thing many of us did not anticipate at the outset of this year was the extreme assault on the working families of Wisconsin in particular and the nation as a whole,” he wrote. “I was happy with some of the results of this year’s Wisconsin state senate recall elections, and I was glad to be able to play a small role in supporting all of the Democratic candidates.”

In 2012, he says he’ll work for the reelection of President Barack Obama, but following the actions of Gov. Scott Walker, he says he also understands that “retaking the state governments from these corporate-backed operatives” must be a priority.

“The entire political climate is more infected by the domination of very wealthy individual and corporate interests than perhaps at any time in our nation’s history. That is why I founded Progressives United, an organization devoted not only to overturning the Citizens United decision but to challenging those involved in the political process who, for short-term political gain, are willing to seek and accept unlimited corporate contributions. This practice should be strongly opposed regardless of party and regardless of whether I otherwise support these candidates,” he said.

“In many ways, this is the overriding political struggle of our time. It is more important than whether or when one person runs for office again. That is why, at this time, I am devoting my primary political energy to this cause and this organization.”

The move required special arrangements with Canadian regulators because the generators are so large that no International Atomic Energy Agency approved container can hold them and because the amount of radiation they contain exceeds the limits for shipments under international law.

Because the shipment would pass through U.S. territories in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway en route to Sweden, U.S. approval is necessary.

The agency responsible for oversight of nuclear shipments in the U.S. is DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency that has come under criticism recently for its failure to prevent oil and gas pipeline ruptures.

In the final days of his tenure as a U.S. Senator, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin spearheaded an effort to ensure that the agency doesn’t simply rubber stamp the plan.

Feingold, together with Sens. Robert Casey Jr.(D-PA), Kirsten Gellibrand (D-NY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Charles Shumer (D-NY), asked PHMSA to explain how it would handle the request to move the nuclear waste through U.S. waters.

In a Nov. 8, 2010 response PHMSA Director Cynthia Quarterman said the agency would begin considering Bruce Power’s application for a “special arrangement” once the shipping plan was approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Over the past two decades the agency has made special arrangements for the shipping of approximately 40 large nuclear power plant components, she said, but “almost all of the prior U.S. consignments had a lesser radioactive hazard than the proposed Canadian steam generator transport.”

All but one of the previous nuclear shipments appear to involve ocean shipping rather than transport over the Great Lakes.

Quarterman said that PHMSA would solicit input from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before granting Bruce Power an exemption from safety regulations.

Feingold asked whether PHMSA be complying with the National Environmental Policy Act [which requires formal environmental review of federal actions with significant environmental impact] and how the agency would ensure public participation and transparency.

Quarterman stated that the agency would comply with NEPA, but offered no details on actions to engage the public.

“It should be noted that although Canada may approve the initial certificate, the U.S. is in no way bound by their approval,” she said. “The U.S. could require additional conditions or elect not to validate.”

PHMSA must conduct a formal environmental review of the plan, said Toledo-based attorney Terry Lodge, who is working with a coalition of U.S. environmental and nuclear watchdog groups intent on stopping the transport.

“This precedent-setting project, if allowed to proceed, will normalize some risky practices that have larger implications for human health and the environment,“ he said. “Bruce Power’s aim is to save money on long-term stewardship costs of radioactive waste by reducing its volume and mixing some of it into recycled metal markets.”

“We believe the proposed shipment manifests as yet unquantified threats to water, the environment and public health in the event of a seal rupture on the generators,” Lodge said. “Radionuclides could enter the Lakes and Seaway, and if so, fisheries and resort activities will be seen as contaminated.”

Lodge said that the transport plans presented by Bruce Power do not detail emergency response measures in the event of a freighter accident and do not include cleanup plans, spill remediation protocols or drinking water protection measures.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Pundits may differ over which natural disaster analogy was most fitting — tidal wave or  earthquake? — but Republicans made large gains in both chambers of Congress and various statehouses across the country on election day. And while, at the time of writing, races in several key Western states were far from decided, the election night shaped up to be one of few surprises for either party. Republicans guaranteed themselves a majority in the House, while Democrats can rest assured that they’ll retain a majority in the Senate come 2011.

[Congress1] The evening began with quick victories for GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, raising expectations of a Tea Party-backed surge in Congress. Bellwether House races, including those of Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all went for their Republican challengers, causing pundits to revise their estimates for GOP House gains from the 50s up into the 60s, or perhaps higher.

Whether one voted for the Obama health care bill, like Rep. Tom Periello (D), or against it, like Rep. Glenn Nye (D), being a House Democrat in Virginia tonight ended up spelling doom and setting the tone for Democrats’ chances in House races across the country. Even veterans like Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were not spared by the GOP wave that swept Southern and Midwestern Democrats. And while DCCC head Rep. Chris Van Hollen criticized the news networks for calling the House for the GOP early, a takeover quickly began to look inevitable.

While liberal Democrats like Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) also lost their seats, groups that had backed them maintained that Democrats lost because they failed to fight and defend their liberal values. “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic,” wrote Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change — and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting.

On the Senate side, however, quick and decisive victories for Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R) in West Virginia and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) over Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut allowed Democrats to breathe easy about their control of the upper chamber.

“Tomorrow starts the rebuilding, the road of rebuilding America,” Manchin told supporters in his victory speech. “We must start tomorrow. And I really believe that Washington can learn a few things and a few lessons from West Virginia.” What kind of Democrat Manchin will be after having to run so far to the right to win office remains a big open question for Democrats.

A solid defeat for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, meanwhile, at the hands of Chris Coons (D) put Republican chances of taking the Senate nearly out of reach and revived questions about the efficacy of the Tea Party in aiding a GOP wave. “It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” said Karl Rove after her loss became clear. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”

Likewise, a victory for the Democrats’ very vulnerable majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle confirmed the dangers of a Republican nomination process that often stressed ideological purity over electability.

Democratic Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois got off to strong starts in the polls with high turnout and early reporting from Philadelphia and Chicago, prompting talk of small but significant upsets for the Democrats in those races. But as the rural counties began reporting their tallies, Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Mark Kirk in Illinois eventually took control of both races. Likewise, Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who shot out to an early lead over Ken Buck, fell slightly behind as more ballots were counted.

In the governors’ races, Democrats lost seats as well but managed to hang on to victories in close races in Colorado, where Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper held off his American Constitution Party challenger, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Minnesota, where Democrat Mark Dayton was the beneficiary of a three-way race and defeated Republican nominee Tom Emmer*. But in key races in other swing states — ones that President Obama will likely have to win to secure re-election in 2012 — Republicans can look forward to being in control. Rick Scott (R) rode the coattails of Rubio’s victory, defeating Alex Sink (D) in Florida, while the close race in Ohio never got close enough for incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who lost to challenger John Kasich (R).

As for the fate of the Tea Party, early decisive Senate wins for Paul and Rubio were offset by decisive drubbing of Christine O’Donnell and a narrow loss for Angle. In the House, Tea Party candidate Sean Bielat, who at one point looked to be posing a credible challenge to Rep. Barney Frank (D) in Massachusetts, lost by a wide margin — but enough Tea Party candidates claimed seats to form a sizable caucus in the next Congress.

Speaking at the Grand Hyatt Ballroom in Washington, likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was unable to hold back his tears. “Listen, I’ll be brief, because we have real work to do, and this is not a time for celebration,” he said, “not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work … not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. The American people have sent an unmistakable message to him tonight, and that message is: ‘change course.’ We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

*UPDATE: Democrat Mark Dayton continues to lead Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota Governor’s Race, but the margin is so slim that a recount appears likely.

As for the rest of us, we can celebrate what with any luck is the death of campaign-finance reform and the revival of more robust political competition. Thirty-five years after it began in the wake of Watergate, the liberal crusade to limit campaign spending has proven once again to be a hopeless failure.

In the spirit of charity (or the fact that many campaign finance laws are still on the books and don’t look to be in any danger of being struck down by the courts), however, the Journal is willing to offer the reform community something of a grand bargain that entails striking down all campaign finance limits and the Federal Election Commission in exchange for full disclosure:

These columns have long supported disclosing political contributions as part of a larger deregulation that allowed any American to give as much as he wants to any candidate. This is the Virginia model and it works well, as it did at the national level for decades before the goo-goos got into the act. Lately, however, as we’ve watched Democrats and liberals attack Target Corp. and other businesses for donating to independent groups, we wonder if even disclosure is wise. But as the price for a wholesale repeal of all campaign-finance limits and putting the Federal Election Commission out of business, we’re willing to compromise.

So how about it, goo-goos? Your standard bearer on Capitol Hill looks like a goner, and the Supreme Court has rightly gutted your schemes to limit political money as a violation of the First Amendment. John McCain is still around, but we doubt any Republicans will be foolish enough to follow him again down this primrose path. Accept the fact that money can’t be purged from politics, and we’ll even give you something in return for admitting reality.

It’s a nice offer, sort of, but it ignores two realities. The first is that the Supreme Court just yesterday rejected an appeal from the conservative group SpeechNow.org, which sought to limit the scope of what it had to disclose to the FEC about its donors and activities. The decision was consistent with other opinions offered by the Roberts court — including Citizens United — which indicate that full and prompt disclosure is both constitutional and desirable, so it seems strange that Democrats would feel the need to trade anything for the cause.

The second, sadder reality is that while the Journal still appears to (tepidly) endorse the concept of disclosure, recent Senate votes on the DISCLOSE Act indicate that every single Senate Republican has abandoned it. Several GOP Senators, of course, have indicated that their objections to the bill lay not in disclosure but in its smaller provisions — like the one limiting the speech of large government contractors — which they say provide an unfair advantage to unions in election contests.

It’s for this reason that the reform community is getting increasingly vocal about Democrats trying to pass a stripped-down, disclosure-only bill during the lame duck session. In doing so, they either can get their desired disclosure (without trading anything) or force Republicans in the Senate to cast a vote on whether they still think transparency is a good idea after all.

The poll finds Republicans in an unusual position: on the brink of making political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular. Likely voters are evenly divided on the Republican Party, with 47 percent holding a positive opinion. [...]

Republicans have said they want to cut $100 billion from the federal budget as early as January. That would amount to 21 percent of the government’s so-called discretionary spending and target programs such as college loans for low-income students or medical research at the National Institutes of Health.

Less than one-third of poll respondents — 31 percent — say they support cutting federal spending in areas such as education and health care, excluding Social Security, Medicare and defense.

Of course, these numbers won’t by any means stop a new Republican Congress from claiming a wide mandate to enact its agenda. Besides the obvious numerical calculus entailed in controlling the Senate, this is one of the reasons that the Senate races coming down to the wire in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin and Nevada are so important.

The candidates representing the GOP in these races are all true believers in deeply conservative causes, and a victory for them would certainly seem like a sign that the nation has moved significantly to the right. If they loose, however, writes E. J. Dionne, it’ll make Republican claims of a sea change that much harder to justify:

So far, being righter-than-right has been anything but helpful. O’Donnell’s nomination virtually sealed a victory for Democrat Chris Coons. In Colorado, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, after spending the summer under assault from anonymously funded conservative groups, has been closing in on tea party favorite Ken Buck. In Wisconsin, Sen. Russ Feingold has narrowed Republican Ron Johnson’s once substantial lead.

In Alaska, the tea party’s Joe Miller faces a formidable write-in challenge from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom he defeated in the Republican primary, even as Democrat Scott McAdams battles to sneak through on the GOP split.

Republican Rand Paul has clung to a lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky, a very red state where a Republican should not be having so much trouble. As for Nevada, nobody knows if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will prevail over marquee tea party candidate Sharron Angle, but Angle’s bizarre brand of conservatism is the one thing giving Reid a fighting chance.

Most of the reports filed at the last minute today won’t be available online until sometime over the weekend, but the Sunlight Foundation takes a bird’s-eye view of spending so far and notes that of the more than $200 million already spent on independent expenditures in this election cycle, a solid majority of it is being laid out by independent groups as opposed to the traditional political committees. This varies greatly even from 2006, when party committees like the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee still dominated the picture, as you can see clearly in the graphic provided by Sunlight:

This decline in the influence of the traditional political committees is probably one of the most notable effects of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Campaign finance legislation sponsored nearly a decade ago by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) prevented the parties from raising unlimited “soft money” contributions, but recent court rulings in the wake of Citizens United have allowed PACs to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they promise to do so independently from candidates and political parties. And as the popular levers of raising and spending money have shifted, the traditional avenues of power and influence have been upended.

That’s not to say, of course, that the parties no longer wield a lot of power. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee all still rank in the top 10 for independent expenditure outlays among outside groups, and they also still enjoy special privileges — like coordinating with and donating directly to candidates — that the new Super PACs, as they are known, do not.

Also of note is the fact that conservative-leaning groups are outstripping liberal leaning groups in surpassing the traditional party committees by a wide margin. It’s hard to say whether liberal outside groups are behind the curve in forming 501(c)(4)s and Super PACs, unable to raise the same kind of money from wealthy donors as conservatives have done during this cycle, or taking a principled stand against the breakdown in campaign finance law, but it will be interesting to see how they react and regroup following the midterm elections.

Eighteen months later, with no confirmation vote in sight, Sullivan says he realized “it didn’t seem likely the impasse was going to be resolved, and a confirmation didn’t seem in the offing in the foreseeable future.”

The impasse Sullivan mentions is a reference to the hold that was placed by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) on his nomination, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. McCain and Feingold weren’t so much opposed to Sullivan as they were frustrated that the Obama administration had not chosen to nominate good replacements for all the commissioners whose terms had expired. But, here, the plot grows even thicker:

Why hasn’t Obama done so? Traditionally, nominees to the FEC are presented as a pair, replacing one Democratic and one Republican commissioner whose terms have expired. The White House almost always defers to the other party’s Senate leader to select his party’s nominee. But, as Sullivan explains, there was little movement by Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell toward giving President Obama a name to replace Commissioner Donald McGahn. Rather than breaking with that tradition and risking a major fight with the Senate GOP, Obama has refrained from nominating replacements for either.

Both McConnell’s intransigence and Obama’s lack of resolve could therefore be said to be guilty in perpetuating the ongoing regulatory breakdown on FEC, but so too is the horribly time-consuming structure of the Senate confirmation process itself, notes Sullivan:

“The problem with cloture,” he says, “is not the vote but the amount of floor time it takes in the Senate.” Sullivan says “it is an incredible distraction to occupy the Senate with a nomination like mine with so many other pressing matters on the floor.” Even if cloture is invoked with approval of at least 60 senators, Senate rules provide for 30 more hours of floor debate — precious time, especially given a full Senate docket that included health care, financial services, the budget, and two Supreme Court confirmations.

Indeed, if every presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation had to be put to a cloture vote, the Senate would hardly have time for anything else. Faced with the prospect of fighting McConnell and wasting precious floor time in the Senate too, the Obama administration apparently chose to punt on the issue instead and let the FEC soldier on in its beleaguered state a little longer.