Iowa’s primary election is one week from today, and while most of the competitive races are on the Republican side, Democrats do have some choices to make as well. The Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth wrote a good summary of the campaign between Matt Campbell and Mike Denklau in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, which covers 32 counties.

In most other parts of Iowa, the only choice facing Democrats is on the U.S. Senate part of the primary ballot. Lots of links on the race between Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause are after the jump.

The Democrats running against five-term Republican incumbent Chuck Grassley met in three debates last week. The Des Moines Register and WHO-TV hosted the first event on Monday. Video clips can be viewed here. I can’t remember another time that a skirmish before a debate dominated the media coverage of that event. Fiegen brought “a thick accordian file full of notes” for reference, and when a Des Moines Register representative told him that was against the ground rules, he argued and eventually accused Conlin of dictating those rules. (Kathie Obradovich noted that the Register has barred candidates from bringing in notes for at least six years.) WHO-TV’s Dave Price reported that Fiegen gradually raised his voice as he was arguing with the Register employee and then “let loose” when he turned to face Conlin. Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson commented, “My parents would have put it this way: Tom Fiegen ‘threw a kitten fit’ right before show time because he couldn’t have his huge stack of notes on the set.”

The other newsworthy event during Monday’s debate was Fiegen’s criticism of tax credits that James Conlin’s business, Conlin Properties, has received to build affordable housing. Henderson posted the best write-up of the exchange here. Excerpt:

“I understand that you and your husband own a company called ‘Conlin Properties’ and you received last year and this year $20 million in tax credits,” Fiegen said. “How can you credibly ask Charles Grassley to give up $270,000 in farm program benefits when you’ve collected yourself $20 million in tax credits?”

A Conlin campaign spokesman says Fiegen’s figures are off, as Conlin Properties received 15 million in tax credits over 10 years rather than the 20 million over two years which Fiegen claimed.

“My husband builds low-income and moderate-income properties,” Conlin said. “The money, the tax credits that are provided for that are part of our effort nationally to provide housing to low-income people.” […]

Fiegen attacked the rental rates for the apartments. “I understand on your properties low-income people pay rent between $400 and $700 a month,” Fiegen said. “I’ve got to say in Clarence, Iowa, I don’t think that that’s necessarily affordable housing for low-income people.”

Conlin, in reply, suggested rent in Iowa’s largest city were higher than in Fiegen’s hometown of Clarence, which has a population of about a thousand.  “The low-income housing properties are rent controlled in the sense that they’re based on the local in which they are,” Conlin said. “And a $400 apartment in Des Moines, Iowa, is – in fact – a very low-income property.”

Fiegen’s other beef was that Conlin Properties sold the tax credits they were awarded. “I don’t know how selling tax credits for cash helps low-income (people),” Fiegen said.

Conlin said it was “clear” that Fiegen didn’t understand how the tax credits for low-income housing development work.  “You always sell tax credits,” Conlin said. “That’s the purpose of tax credits is to sell (them) and provide equity in the building.”

Fiegen’s choice of argument here baffles me. The plight of working and non-working Americans is at the heart of of “Fiegenomics,” yet Fiegen criticizes Conlin’s husband for using tax credits to build affordable housing. Progressives should support incentives to redevelop in cities and build housing for people with moderate incomes (yes, $400 a month is “affordable” in Des Moines). Conlin also noted last week that the low-income tax credit program creates a significant number of jobs. A lot of things in the tax code benefit a small group while doing nothing for society at large, but affordable housing tax credits ain’t one of them.

Anyway, Grassley’s campaign immediately pushed Fiegen’s talking point, adding a few irrelevant jabs at Conlin’s personal wealth. I’m sure it’s not the last time we’ll hear about this controversy.

Conlin made one misstep on Monday. All three candidates said during the debate that they supported raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. Afterwards Conlin’s campaign released a statement saying, “In the debate, I meant only to note some of the things that the Deficit Commission is considering. The last thing we need are additional Social Security taxes.” I agree with Fiegen and Krause; why should working-class people have to pay Social Security taxes on all of their income when the highest earners pay into Social Security on only a small fraction of their incomes? But aside from the principle here, it never looks good for a campaign to release a clarifying statement right after a debate.

Shortly after Monday’s debate, Fiegen told Iowa Independent he had more “good stuff” on Conlin to illustrate his main argument against the front-runner: “What I’ve heard from people is that they view Roxanne as having too much baggage.” It’s no surprise that Fiegen views those attacks as his best bet before the primary, because the three Democrats don’t disagree much on the issues, with with a few exceptions (see also here).

On Thursday, Conlin and Fiegen met again in a Cedar Rapids debate hosted by IowaPolitics.com, Mediacom Communications, The Cedar Rapids Gazette and the League of Women Voters of Johnson County. (Krause missed the event because of a flight delay.) Todd Dorman wrote up the event for the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Lynn Campbell did the same at IowaPolitics.com and Lynda Waddington published this piece at Iowa Independent. You can listen to the event at IowaPolitics.com or watch a replay at various times on Mediacaom’s MC22 cable channel.

Waddington wrote that “Fiegen’s promised fireworks did little more than fizzle.” Campbell described the most dramatic moments of the evening:

About halfway through the forum […] Fiegen was asked about flood relief — an issue key to residents of flood-ravaged Cedar Rapids — but instead decided to use the moment to launch the attack.

“I want to address the special interests,” said Fiegen, a former state senator. “One of the things that Roxanne has run on is she’s not taken any money from lobbyists. But one of her BFFs, that’s best friends forever, [is] a gentleman by the name of Jerry Crawford. … Since then, Jerry Crawford has received $150,000 as a registered federal lobbyist from Monsanto.”

Fiegen went on to allege that the relationship will lead Conlin to be influenced by special interests. “At her coming out party, there’s a picture of her and Jerry Crawford is actually standing closer to her than her husband,” he said. “When she says she’s running against special interests …”

Conlin said she hoped Fiegen wasn’t suggesting anything by saying that she was standing close to Crawford — a comment that drew a laugh from the audience. But that just caused Fiegen to raise his voice to make his point even more adamantly.

“I’m suggesting that you are of the old school, the insider, where you will, your BFF and you will not even have to talk and Monsanto will not have their hand slapped,” Fiegen said, standing and addressing Conlin directly. “And then you’ll say, ‘I’m suing Monsanto,’ and my view is you’ll sue anybody for a fee.”

Conlin maintained that she is not taking any money from lobbyists. “I am suing Monsanto and that’s not just any lawsuit,” she said. “It is a nationwide, class-action against Monsanto for anti-trust violations. And most people think that that’s the lawsuit that caused the federal government to look into Monsanto’s potential violations of the anti-trust laws. I’m an anti-trust lawyer and I’m not going to even respond to your cheap shot.”

I largely agree with Dorman’s take on the clash:

One snag in this line of attack is that Conlin is suing Monsanto in what she called a “nationwide, class-action” lawsuit over anti-trust allegations. And show me a prominent Democrat who doesn’t have a picture showing them close to Jerry Crawford. Conlin said they’ve been friends for decades. Likely true.

So I think the attack fell flat, although it does show again that Conlin’s going to have trouble running at Grassley as an outsider when she is, in fact, an insider herself. Fiegen could have made that point without the “BFF” stuff.

It was also sort of bad form for Fiegen to launch his salvo in response to a question about flood protection. In Cedar Rapids. I understand candidates use any chance they get to go on the offensive, but the timing in this case was somewhat questionable.

Obviously a campaign contribution from a long-time friend doesn’t outweigh the fact that Conlin is suing Monsanto. While I’m not persuaded by Fiegen’s charges, the flap over Jerry Crawford suggests to me that Conlin’s pledge not to take money from federal lobbyists and political action committees was more trouble than it’s worth. Not all federal lobbyists are evil; some are lobbying for the public interest on labor, social and environmental issues. She’s cut herself off from many potential donors, and Grassley’s campaign may try to turn the Crawford donation into an attack like Fiegen did.

According to Kay Henderson, Fiegen also claimed on Thursday that during the 1970s, “As the U.S. Attorney, [Conlin] and her staff put many small farmers out of business.” Conlin denied the charge, and Fiegen doesn’t seem to have produced any supporting evidence.

Friday morning, the three Democrats appeared side by side on Iowa Public Television’s Iowa Press program. Click here to watch the replay or read the full transcript. I thought all three candidates did well, and they didn’t disagree much on the issues. Fiegen’s main shot at Conlin was claiming she didn’t know enough about agriculture to vote on a farm bill. (In Cedar Rapids he had challenged her about “the weight and moisture content of a bushel of corn.”) He added that he could find no public record of Conlin helping a family farmer who faced foreclosure. Conlin countered that during the 1980s she represented many farmers in direct negotiations with creditors, which is why there may not be any published case of a court proceeding.

As the clear front-runner in the race, Conlin has focused on Grassley rather than her primary opponents. She recently downplayed substantive differences between herself and Krause and Fiegen, and has presented herself as the toughest potential opponent for Grassley. Her advantages in name recognition and campaign resources are substantial. In a memo to “interested parties” earlier this month, Conlin’s campaign manager Mark Daley laid out the case for why Conlin would give Grassley a tough race.

If all of the candidates were equally well positioned to challenged Grassley, I might have trouble deciding whom to support. I agree with most of the “Fiegenomics” platform, Conlin has the strongest record by far on civil rights issues, and I like Krause’s outspoken stance on Afghanistan.

But the Senate primary isn’t like the campaign in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, where Denklau and Campbell face equally long odds against Representative Steve King. Not only do I admire Conlin’s accomplishments as assistant Iowa attorney general, U.S. attorney and a private-practice supporter of civil rights, she is clearly the only candidate in this field with a prayer of giving Grassley a tough race.

Over the weekend the Iowa City Press-Citizen endorsed Conlin as the candidate “who can best hit the ground running in Washington.” In contrast, the Des Moines Register endorsed Fiegen, saying he “does his homework” and voters should reward him for “preparing best to thoughtfully tackle issues.” The Register’s choice surprised me. Fiegen has been planning to reveal supposedly damaging information about Conlin for sometime, but he didn’t “do his homework” very well on the housing tax credits. Not only was he wrong about the amount Conlin Properties has received, he appeared not to understand the standard way affordable housing tax credits are used. The way Fiegen blew his top before last Monday’s debate raises questions about whether he has the temperament and poise to handle a general election campaign. The Press-Citizen cited that pre-debate blowup as one example of why “Fiegen himself does not yet come across as ready for prime time.”

I view the Register’s endorsement as a signal to Conlin that 1) they will endorse Grassley for the general election, and 2) she needs to prepare more detailed answers on a few federal issues.

I don’t think newspaper endorsements are particularly important, but I will be interested to see how they shake out. If your local newspaper has selected a candidate in this primary, please post a comment or e-mail me a link (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Share any thoughts about Iowa’s Senate race in this thread.

UPDATE: Public Policy Polling released an Iowa poll of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate on June 1. The survey found Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, compared to 13 percent for Krause and 8 percent for Fiegen. Read the whole polling memo at Dorman’s blog.

SECOND UPDATE: One of the few policy difference that emerged during the Iowa Press taping was over ethanol subsidies. Krause and Conlin support continuing them, Fiegen characterized them as ineffective. Today Krause criticized Fiegen’s stand, saying the “ethanol and biodiesel industries are part of a national strategic effort to wean this nation from oil.”

THIRD UPDATE: Fiegen made new and ridiculous attacks about Conlin’s campaign spending today. Sure you want to praise him for “doing his homework,” Register editorial board?