Iowa Democratic strategist Jeff Link regrets providing comments for Mark Halperin’s forthcoming book, he told Bleeding Heartland.

Politico’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer were first to report on August 18 that Link was among “more than 75 top Democratic strategists” Halperin interviewed for How to Beat Trump: America’s Top Political Strategists on What It Will Take. News of the book deal provoked outrage due to Halperin’s long history of sexually harassing and assaulting women, which became public knowledge in October 2017.

The founder of the Des Moines-based Link Strategies political consulting and public relations firm said in an August 20 e-mail,

For a team that’s run a smooth and successful operation all year, Fred Hubbell’s campaign was surprisingly inept at managing the controversy over whether the candidate would release his tax returns.

The Iowa Democratic Party held its final Jefferson-Jackson dinner Saturday night, drawing some 6,000 activists to hear three presidential candidates speak in Des Moines. Last night’s spectacle won’t loom as large over the Iowa caucus campaign as the JJ did in 2007, when it took place in November and the caucuses were scheduled for early January, rather than February. But some new tactics emerged during the speeches by presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Hillary Clinton. My thoughts on the evening’s highlights are after the jump.

I am a sucker for hand-made political signs, so I also enclose below my favorite pictures from the crowds in the bleachers. I put “Feel the Bern” in lights up top because I’ve never seen electrified signs at the JJ before.

While I see the value in supporters waving signs (or glow sticks, as many did last night) at a big rally, the “sign wars” some campaigns stage before multi-candidate events have always struck me as pointless. How does it demonstrate “organizational strength” to send a few staffers to put up printed materials in windows or along a road? Why would anyone want their volunteers to stand around yelling for hours before the dinner, rather than saving their energy and voices to show that enthusiasm inside the hall? For those who disagree with me and love the show, Pat Rynard chronicled the morning and afternoon activities by all three campaigns at Iowa Starting Line.

As for why I called it the “final” JJ, the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual fall fundraiser will continue under a to-be-determined name honoring icons considered more inclusive. You can send your suggestion to the state party using this form through February 15, 2016.

Pat Rynard broke an interesting story today at Iowa Starting Line: a super-PAC is being created to support Ravi Patel’s campaign in Iowa’s first Congressional district. Patel is one of three declared Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Representative Rod Blum. He has already raised a shocking amount of money for a first-time candidate–more than half a million dollars by the end of March. That haul included funds from some 80 people who maxed out to Patel’s campaign for the general election as well as for the primary. Congressional campaigns can’t spend more than $2,700 from any individual donor before the 2016 primary, but a super-PAC could collect and spend as much as anyone wants to donate, anytime.

Rynard quotes Patel adviser Norm Sterzenbach (a former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party) as saying, “There is already one Super PAC operating in this race. EMILY’s List came out early with their support of Monica Vernon and we fully expect them to run a considerable independent campaign on her behalf.” Yes and no.

EMILY’s List did endorse Vernon early. Technically, that group is a regular political action committee, not a super-PAC. The Women Vote! super-PAC is associated with EMILY’s List, and it spent quite a bit of money during the last election cycle, but mostly not on expenditures for women in competitive Democratic primaries for U.S. House seats. It remains to be seen how much money EMILY’s List will put behind Vernon; I would guess not nearly as much as a super-PAC would spend for Patel or against his rivals. EMILY’s List gave $10,000 directly to Staci Appel’s 2014 campaign in IA-03 and bundled another $233,283 in contributions to Appel, who had no competition in her primary.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. P.S.- If Rynard’s sources are correct, Jeff Link will lead the super-PAC for Patel.  

Less than 24 hours after news broke of Chris Diebel’s candidacy for the Des Moines City Council’s at-large seat, incumbent Skip Moore’s campaign announced the endorsement of the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, “a coalition of 52 local affiliated unions.” Moore was a unionized city employee for many years and had strong backing from organized labor in his successful 2009 campaign.

Diebel is a marketing specialist who worked for several hip downtown Des Moines businesses before becoming a managing partner in LPCA Public Strategies, the public and government relations firm headed by Iowa’s most prominent Democratic consultant, Jeff Link. A former “young professional of the year,” Diebel has volunteered for a wide range of non-profit organizations, including several that will generate support from “upscale” Democrats and Republicans (e.g. Des Moines-Westside Chamber of Commerce, Des Moines Arts Festival).

Local elections tend to have low turnout, and it will be fascinating to see which campaign does a better job of mobilizing supporters: organized labor’s boots on the ground or LPCA’s cutting edge campaign management techniques.

UPDATE: On August 1 the Central Iowa Building & Construction Trades Council became the second large labor group to endorse Moore for re-election. According to a news release, “The council represents 17 local labor unions and over 5,000 skilled union workers in central Iowa.”

Chris Diebel, considered a possible candidate for the open seat in Iowa Senate district 17, announced today that he will run for the Des Moines City Council at-large seat this November. Diebel told the Des Moines Register, “I’ve spent my career working with small businesses, neighborhood associations and local chambers and I believe it’s the perfect opportunity to take that community involvement to the next level.” He is a managing director for LPCA Public Strategies, more commonly known as Jeff Link’s political consulting firm. After the jump I’ve posted Diebel’s official bio.

Diebel will be competing against Des Moines City Council member Skip Moore, who kicked off his re-election campaign last month. Moore won a tough three-way race for the open at-large seat in 2009. Michael Kiernan had left the position to become chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. In that race, many labor unions endorsed Moore, while his opponents had support from other parts of the political establishment. All three candidates were clustered together on election day, but as a close second, Moore advanced to the runoff against Leisha Barcus. He won the runoff election a few weeks later by 52 percent to 47.5 percent. Moore worked for the city for many years as an arborist before joining the city council. His campaign Facebook page touts his work on behalf of “the residents, the neighborhoods and the working families in our city.” I particularly appreciate his efforts to make Des Moines more bicycle-friendly.

With Diebel out of the running for Senate district 17, the campaign for that heavily Democratic open seat is shaping up to be a clash of two Des Moines south side political titans: Tony Bisignano and Ned Chiodo.  

Eighteen casinos currently operate in Iowa, but if backers have their way, that number will grow in the near future. Early voting is under way for the March 5 Linn County referendum on a proposed casino in Cedar Rapids.

Meanwhile, this week some people rolled out plans for a new casino in Norwalk (Warren County), just south of the Des Moines metro area. Links and details are after the jump.

Any comments related to expanding casino gambling are welcome in this thread. I tend to agree with Richard Florida, an expert on urban development who made the case against casinos in the Cedar Rapids Gazette not long ago. Florida commented this week that casinos are a good litmus test, showing which self-styled “city builders” are actually “city destroyers.”

Barack Obama’s 2012 Iowa campaign manager Brad Anderson confirmed yesterday that he plans to run against Secretary of State Matt Schultz in 2014. I hope there will be a competitive Democratic primary, because from where I’m sitting, Anderson looks like the wrong candidate for this race.

UPDATE: Added details from Anderson’s formal announcement below, along with his campaign bio and a list of Democrats on his steering committee (including Senator Tom Harkin, former governors Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver, Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, and several former chairs of the Iowa Democratic Party). Looks like there will be no competitive primary.

State Senator Joe Seng caught a lucky break yesterday when a three-member panel agreed that he qualified for the ballot in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s second Congressional district.

Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker will represent Zach Edwards, a Democratic operative who is charged with attempting identity theft against Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz.

Crime and punishment are on my mind this weekend. Yesterday two men were sentenced for breaking into Representative Leonard Boswell’s farm house last July, and an Iowa Democratic operative was charged with perpetrating identity theft against Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Follow me after the jump for more on those and other crime-related stories.

This is an open thread; all topics welcome. The Bleeding Heartland thread on the South Carolina primary results is here.  

Iowa voters handed Democrats the keys to run the state in 2006 and expanded the Democratic majority in the legislature this year. Now we have to prove that we are capable of governing well. Like almost every other state, Iowa is facing a deteriorating revenue base while demands for government services rise in a tough economy. Governor Chet Culver has already imposed two rounds of budget cuts, and more difficult choices will need to be made during the upcoming legislative session.

There is no perfect solution to the budget problem, but some proposals are so bad that they should be ruled out immediately.

Selling the Iowa Lottery is a terrible idea on every level.

I don’t often agree with Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen, but he is right about this:

Why would anyone want to sell their seed corn? And why would Iowa want to do something that may lead to expanded gambling? […]

We should privatize those governmental functions that cost the taxpayers, not the ones that make them a profit. […]

Since 1985, the Iowa lottery has netted state government $1 billion. Why would we turn some of those profits over to the gambling industry? It’s short-term thinking to give up $50 million in annual lottery profits for a lump sum now.

Also, this idea breaks faith with the promise made to Iowans when we started down the path of expanded gambling: If Iowa was going to get into legalized gambling, it was going to be heavily regulated.

Now we’re going to invite casino owners and others in the gambling industry to run our lottery? I’m sorry; the history of the gaming industry is just too checkered to put people from it in charge.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and I hate to see the state encouraging people to throw their money away on the lottery. But now that Iowa has a lottery, we should keep the profits in state hands. Selling the lottery would bring in cash this year, but we’d need to replace the lost revenue in future budgets. It wouldn’t solve the problem, and it would make Democrats look incompetent.

By the way, State Auditor David Vaudt described the idea as “a very short-term Band-Aid approach.” The plan he described would involve

a lease of the lottery for up to 50 years in exchange for a lump sum payment of $200 million and some annual lease fee.

The lottery generates more than $50 million a year in profits for the state’s budget, and Vaudt predicted the lump sum would quickly evaporate.

Of course it would.

Vaudt may be the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, and he was warning about budget problems long before Culver and the Democratic leadership in the legislature started talking about budget cuts. Do we want to hand him another talking point on Democrats’ alleged fiscal irresponsibility?

If selling the lottery is bad policy and bad politics, why would anyone consider it? Here is Yepsen’s theory:

[T]he fact that Culver is entertaining sale of the lottery is an example of how big gambling money and influence slosh around Iowa politics.

The delegation that called on him to promote the idea included former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is a longtime friend, adviser and donor of Culver’s, and Jeff Link, a leading Democratic campaign strategist who also runs referenda campaigns for gambling interests.

Culver will need to show how selling the lottery is a good deal for taxpayers and not just his cronies and campaign contributors on the gambling industry’s payroll. Watch to see how much gambling money starts showing up in Culver’s re-election warchest – and in those of Democratic legislative leaders.

Democrats helped gambling interests last session by putting an unjustified exemption for casino floors into the smoking ban bill. If we care about workers’ health, why should casino employees be less protected than those who work in restaurants and bars?

Handing over the lottery would play right into Republican talking points about “special interests” controlling the Democratic Party.

Culver, House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal should nip this speculation in the bud by ruling out any plan to sell the lottery for short-term gain.

What else, if anything, should be “off the table” in the context of balancing the budget? I agree with Culver that going into debt should be considered.

I also believe that shared sacrifice requires some kind of action on the revenue side, such as closing tax loopholes that primarily benefit the well-off. When middle-income and lower-income Iowans bear the brunt of cuts in services, wealthier Iowans should also be asked to help bring the budget into balance. Some economists have shown that during an economic downturn, raising taxes on the wealthy does less harm to the economy than cutting government spending.

I understand the political arguments against raising taxes in any form now. There will be plenty of time to debate that later. For now, Democrat leaders should make the easy call: keep the Iowa Lottery in state hands.