Lots of news about Iowa's U.S. Senate race

May 18 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"

Screenshots from TV ads supporting Josh Turek, Zach Wahls, and Ashley Hinson

Joe Perticone’s latest story for The Bulwark highlights a disturbing trend in U.S. politics: “Campaigns are starting to more heavily rely on partnerships with social media influencers to generate interest in their candidates and causes through paid endorsements and custom-ordered content—and the material is very often being served up with no disclosure informing the viewer that what they’re viewing is actually an advertisement.”

I’m not an influencer, but I do frequently post videos of Iowa candidates or elected officials on my social media (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and X/Twitter). So I want to be clear: I do not and will not accept money in exchange for coverage on any platform. My written stories and videos are driven by what I find newsworthy, especially if I can cover a story you won’t find anywhere else, or a different angle on the big news of the day.

Additionally, to avoid conflicts of interest, I do not accept any financial support from Iowa elected officials, candidates, or paid campaign staff or consultants.

Getting back to business: the audio file from the May 18 edition of “KHOI’s Capitol Week” is at the top of this post. The archive of past shows is available here.

Spencer Dirks and I spent about half of this week’s show on the U.S. Senate campaign before turning to U.S. House races and a couple of notable bill signings. Here’s the written recap, for those who would rather read than listen. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read it without interruption here.

Wahls and Turek clash in second televised debate

Last Thursday, State Representative Josh Turek and State Senator Zach Wahls held their second televised debate. It’s the last time Democratic voters will be able to see them side by side. Wahls had asked for three debates before the primary, but the Turek campaign agreed to two.

If you missed this debate, you can find videos on the websites or YouTube channels of KCCI in Des Moines and KCRG in Cedar Rapids.

Reproductive rights was a major flash point during this debate, as Wahls touted his own record on the issue as “second to none” and criticized Turek for missing several votes on abortion-related bills. He also pointed out that Turek voted for a bill funding crisis pregnancy centers in committee. (Several other Democrats did the same; all of them including Turek voted against that bill on the House floor.) Robin Opsahl covered the back and forth for Iowa Capital Dispatch.

During their legislative careers, Wahls has been more outspoken on abortion rights. Most recently, he spoke on the Senate floor against the medication abortion bill that Republicans passed on the last day of the legislative session. Turek voted against that bill but didn’t speak during the House debate.

Turek insists he is committed to reproductive rights. He was absent due to illness when Republicans passed the near-total ban during a a 2023 special session. He was out of state engaged in disability advocacy when the House debated some other anti-abortion bills. But he made his opposition to those bills clear in his newsletter and on social media.

Members of the minority party don’t control the legislative calendar, so there would have been no way for Turek to know Republicans planned to debate an abortion-related bill while he was advocating for disability research funding in Congress. I interviewed Wahls last weekend and asked him directly: was he accusing his opponent of deliberately scheduling trips or feigning illness to avoid voting on abortion bills?

Wahls said he was not making that accusation. But he observed that the legislature is only in session a few months a year, and the window for policy bills to be debated on the floor is even narrower. He suggested that scheduling out of state speaking engagements—even on an issue you’re passionate about—during the session was “not the best way to represent your constituents.” Wahls also pointed out that he co-sponsored more reproductive rights bills, whereas Turek didn’t co-sponsor legislation in this area for the first three years he served in the House.

Both candidates argue they’re more electable

Since Wahls and Turek agree on many issues, electability has been a recurring theme during the primary campaign. Anecdotally, I hear undecided Democratic voters say they would be happy to vote for either candidate, and are trying to figure out who is best positioned to defeat the Republican nominee. The last time Democrats won a Senate race in Iowa was in 2008, and the GOP didn’t field a serious challenger against Tom Harkin that year.

Turek’s main argument is that he is battle tested, having won twice in a Trump-voting district. I checked the precinct-level numbers again this past week and confirmed that Turek outperformed not only Democratic candidates for president, governor, and Senate, but even received hundreds more votes than Rob Sand in 2022. He has also touted his background, having grown up in a working-class area and faced economic adversity as well as health challenges related to his disability.

Wahls thinks voters are skeptical of insiders, and said he has a record of standing up to insiders in both parties. He believes his message of ending the rigged system in the economy and in politics will resonate with voters, because he is more independent from leadership in the Washington, D.C. Walhs also argued that he has represented small towns and rural areas, because the Senate district where he was first elected in 2018 included Cedar County and part of Muscatine County. (Turek represents an urban district encompassing part of Council Bluffs and Carter Lake,)

The debate moderators asked each contender to name a current senator they admire, and the answers bolstered each candidate’s electability case. Wahls said Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin because she is from a very progressive part of her state (comparable to the Iowa City area), but has managed to win statewide because she’s a hard worker and a fighter.

Turek cited Ruben Gallego of Arizona, because he was able to win a tough race in a red state and has done a lot of work for veterans.

I don’t see this debate as game-changing. Wahls seemed more comfortable with the format. But my feeling was similar to how I felt after watching their first debate on Iowa PBS. Voters already leaning toward Wahls or Turek found a lot of reasons to stay with their candidate. Voters who didn’t know much about them probably heard a lot that they like. I doubt many people switched candidates based on what they saw.

Outside spending looms large in primary

Outside spending has become a big issue in the race. The VoteVets super PAC has now spent more than $8 million on ads promoting Turek (that figure will soon rise to more than $9 million). Wahls has repeatedly claimed insiders are trying to buy the election for Turek. And his campaign recently put up a website criticizing what they call “the shadow machine behind Josh Turek.”

Longtime listeners may remember that last summer, we were the first to report that the Wahls campaign purchased the “JoshTurek.com” domain. Initially, it redirected to the Zach Wahls website. Then it was taken down. Now it is devoted to the groups backing Turek’s campaign. A banner at the top of the page reads, “How much does it cost to buy an election?” with a graphic showing $8,200,000 spent by VoteVets so far. “Iowans deserve to know who's footing the bill, and what they expect in return,” the site says.

On Friday, Wahls challenged Turek to take a pledge to reject super PAC spending on his behalf. I asked him about this “People’s Pledge” and how it would work if he wins the nomination. He said the plege would only take effect if both sides agree to it. The concept is that candidates discourage spending on their behalf by promising to donate half of any amount spent to charity. Wahls told me that would create a “real financial penalty” for the campaign if outside groups spend a lot of money.

Late last week a newly formed group called Iowa Action started running a tv ad supporting Wahls, which you can view here. The script portrays Wahls as “a fighter” and says “DC insiders are spending millions to stop him because they know he’ll be a pain in their side. Zach can’t be bought. He’s a fighter for Iowa, always has been.”

It’s not clear who’s funding the Iowa Action ad, which will cost at least $150,000, according to current Federal Election Commission filings. The total may rise before the June 2 primary. Nevertheless, VoteVets will have spent several times more than both candidates and other interest groups combined.

NBC was first to report on the outside spending for Wahls. Tom Barton reported for the Cedar Rapids Gazette that Iowa Action shares a treasurer with the Next 50 PAC, for which Wahls previously served as executive director.

Pete Buttigieg endorses Josh Turek

We reported last week that Senator Elizabeth Warren came to Des Moines to campaign with Wahls. Last Wednesday another 2020 presidential contender, Pete Buttigieg, endorsed Turek. In the video, which you can watch here, and a written statement, Buttigieg said “Iowa is on the map this year.” He praised Turek’s background and said he “knows how to win tough races” and represents the reddest Iowa legislative district a Democrat won in 2024.

While Bernie Sanders had the most Iowans show up to caucus for him in 2020, Buttigieg edged him out in the delegate count and carried a lot of rural counties. In the video, he said his campaign made history by campaigning everywhere and built a coalition of Democrats, independents, and “future former Republicans.”

Obviously the endorsement helps Turek because a lot of Iowa Democrats have warm feelings toward “Mayor Pete.” I wanted to take a minute during the show to explain why Buttigieg may be taking a special interest in Iowa this cycle. (A year ago, he came out early for Rob Sand for governor.)

I’ve been skeptical that Iowa has a realistic chance to regain its place on the early presidential calendar for Democrats. But if Democrats put some big wins on the board this year—like winning the elections for governor and Senate—Iowa leaders could make the case to DNC members that we’re a swing state again and deserve to be in that early window.

That could give Buttigieg a leg up if he is planning to run for president in 2028, because he already has a strong base of support in Iowa.

Second Turek TV ad emphasizes that he’s not a millionaire

Turek launched his second TV ad a few days ago. He says there are 73 millionaires in the U.S. Senate, and he won’t be one of them. “I was a kid wearing Goodwill hand-me-downs, with the wrong color lunch ticket. A working-class kid in a blue-collar town.”

He goes on to say he knows that “families like mine who pay the price for Trump’s health care cuts, his tariffs, and his overseas wars.” The visuals include Turek pushing his wheelchair uphill and pushing himself up steps to talk to a voter at their door.

Since Turek and his campaign have repeatedly brought up this “only candidate who’s not a millionaire” talking point, I asked Wahls about it. Is he a millionaire, and if so, how did he become one?

Wahls told me he doesn’t have a million dollars in his bank account and never has. He wrote a best-selling book after making that viral speech at the Iowa House hearing on marriage equality, and created a successful business with his sister in 2016. He saved and invested most of the proceeds in a retirement account. Those assets, plus his home in Coralville, plus his interest in some family farmland, put his net worth between $1 million and $2 million.

Democratic group reserves ad space for Senate race

The Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC aligned with Democrats, announced last week that it plans to spend $13.4 million on TV ads this fall targeting Ashley Hinson, the likely Republican nominee. They are also planning a digital advertising campaign but haven’t put a number on that. Their main goal will be to tie Hinson to President Trump and to policies that benefit the wealthy and big corporations.

We often see this division of labor, with candidates spending money on positive messages about themselves and outside groups attacking the opposing party’s nominee.

We reported in April that the Senate Leadership Fund, a major super PAC aligned with Republicans, plans to spend $29 million in Iowa supporting Hinson.

My big takeaway: both parties’ internal polling suggests the Senate race will be competitive. Forecasters currently rate the race as “likely Republican,” but I won’t be surprised if that rating changes to “lean Republican” over the summer.

Hinson touts popular beliefs in first TV ad

Hinson’s first TV ad of this year started running last week. She speaks to the camera, saying, “Here’s what I believe: our veterans deserve a hell of a lot better, health care companies are ripping you off, and members of Congress should not trade stocks. That’s why I worked with both parties to expand mental health care for veterans. I’m working with President Trump to take on insurance companies and I’m fighting to ban stock trading in Congress.”

So much to unpack here!

Although anything that raises Hinson’s name ID statewide is helpful for the primary, she’s not speaking to a GOP electorate in this commercial. This is a general election message, spotlighting popular positions and her work with “both parties.”

I was intrigued that she is now for banning stock trading by members of Congress. I don’t recall her raising this issue or co-sponsoring bills before 2026. (In contrast, Representative Zach Nunn has called for banning stock trading in Congress for years and campaigned on that issue in 2022.)

Republicans have clued in to the fact that big corporations are unpopular; we’ve reported before on how Zach Lahn uses that rhetoric in his campaign for governor.

When Hinson says in this ad that health care companies are ripping you off, I suspect she is trying to insulate herself against future attacks over her vote not to extend the tax subsidies to buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. (Like Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Hinson has asserted that those subsidies were handouts to big corporations.)

Hinson refused invitations to debate Jim Carlin

Since we’ve covered two debates between the Democrats running for Senate, I wanted to explain to listeners why there won’t be a debate between Hinson and her GOP primary opponent, former State Senator Jim Carlin.

She has been pretending he doesn’t exist and declined invitations from news organizations seeking to host a debate between them.

Carlin is running a low-budget, mostly self-financed campaign. I’m watching to see whether he finishes above or below the 26.5 percent of the vote he got as a challenger to Senator Chuck Grassley in the 2022 GOP primary.

Former West Des Moines educators say Hinson abandoned “decency”

A new group called Iowans for Decency, spearheaded by former West Des Moines public school students and teachers, gathered at the state capitol on Saturday to make the case that Ashley Hinson “has failed to demonstrate decency” as a member of Congress. I was there and posted a video of most of the event on YouTube. Joanna Schroeder covered the story for Iowa Capital Dispatch, and Douglas Burns wrote about it on The Iowa Mercury.

The group bought a full-page ad in the Sunday Des Moines Register as well, with an open letter signed by more than 60 former West Des Moines educators. The letter makes a detailed and wide-ranging case against Hinson’s work as a member of Congress.

“We are saddened and disappointed by your votes, loyalties and words as a U.S. congresswoman,” said Nick Nelsen, one of the retired teachers. “You are failing your state and country. Your actions are antithetical to good and just decency.”

More than a dozen educators took turns reading part of the letter. They carried signs spelling out some accusatory questions.

Teachers who participated in Iowans for Decency event (photo by Laura Belin)

The group is targeting Hinson because she is a West Des Moines Valley High School graduate. (Here’s some trivia: so was Cindy Axne.)

Disclosure: while I didn’t plan this event or participate in writing the letter, some of the key organizers of this effort have known me for my whole life. My siblings and I grew up in the same neighborhood and attended Valley High School with some of them. One founding member was our next-door neighbor. Another was Peter Hedges, the writer and film director best known for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” (He’s based in New York City but participates in the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative.) One of the teachers who participated in the May 16 event was my own U.S. history teacher at Valley.

After the primary, Iowans for Decency plans to engage with voters and help get out what it calls “the pro-Democracy vote.” They don’t plan personal attacks: all criticism will be based on harmful policies Hinson has supported.

To sign the open letter or to get involved in the grassroots effort, check out the website (IowansforDecency.org), or contact info@iowansfordecency.org.

A friendly debate for Democrats in IA-02

The three Democrats running for Congress in the second district, covering most of northeast Iowa, faced off in a televised debate last week. It was far less contentious than the Wahls/Turek debates.

I’m not aware of any notable differences on public policy between Lindsay James, Clint Twedt-Ball, and Kathy Dolter. Several times, someone would answer a question about immigration, Social Security, or another important issue, and the other candidates largely agreed. There were no attacks on anyone’s record.

The candidates sought to distinguish themselves by talking about their life experiences. James, a member of the Iowa House from Dubuque, talked about being a fiery redhead and “mama bear.” In her closing statement, she recalled how she had used her platform as a legislator to help a constituent who was being denied health care services. She promised to take her legislative experience and fight against big corporations and greed as a member of Congress.

Dolter described her work as a lieutenant colonel, PhD Army nurse with a “proven record” of getting things done for multiple organizations. She’s started two nursing programs, has served on the Iowa Board of Nursing, and chairs the Dubuque County Board of Health. She said she would work passionately to keep our children out of wars, and to help Iowans have affordable health care and a livable income.

Twedt-Ball described his work as a non-profit founder and leader who worked with needy people in Cedar Rapids. “If you’re looking for the same status quo, I’m not that person. If you’re looking for a typical politician, I’m not that person.” He said he’s stepped in to help clean up after disasters, and this political moment requires unique leaders. A couple of times during the debate, Twedt-Ball mentioned that about three-quarters of the candidates who flipped U.S. House seats in 2018 were first-time candidates.

Of the two Democrats who flipped U.S. House seats in Iowa in 2018, one was a first-time candidate (Cindy Axne). The other was Abby Finkenauer, an Iowa House member from Dubuque.

One part of the debate that stood out to me was when moderators asked each candidate to name one issue where their vote might disappoint the Democratic base. It’s a great question.

Twedt-Ball said sometimes leaders in both parties want to make decisions for people, but he thinks people should have the freedom to make their own decisions.

James said she disagreed with many Democrats on permitting reform, because we need to build more housing and should look seriously at permitting and zoning reform.

Dolter said the biggest corruption in Washington “is people not doing their work.” She would want members of Congress to work Monday to Friday from 8 to 5, with no more than one month of vacation. And she said they should not be “dialing for dollars” or recording “performative social media” while they are supposed to be working for us.

Joe Mitchell picking a fight with Senate GOP leaders

We spent several minutes on a story I find fascinating.

Joe Mitchell is the front-runner for the Republican nomination in the second Congressional district. This past week he wrote a guest column for the Des Moines Register targeting some of his own party’s legislators. According to Mitchell, “Too often, tax-happy Senate leadership forces the House to accept tax increases as the price of passing legislation.” He also wrote, “If we are serious about unleashing Iowa’s true potential, leadership has to change in both the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate majority leader’s office.”

There’s a backstory here that we didn’t have time to report earlier in the year, because there was so much other legislative news.

As we’ve discussed many times, the Iowa House and Senate Republicans have a somewhat dysfunctional relationship. You might even call it a rivalry. Joe Mitchell served in the House for four years, from 2019 through 2022.

For most of this year, House and Senate Republicans were barreling ahead with very different approaches to property tax reform. As a developer, Mitchell owns rental properties and workforce housing, including 30 units in his home town of Mount Pleasant alone. He has led the Iowa Real Estate Developers Association. One of his business partners on some developments has been State Senator Mike Bousselot; he voted against the initial Senate property tax proposal, because it would have doubled property taxes on all multi-residential housing in the state.

Mitchell wrote an op-ed for the Des Moines Register in March, in which he stated, “I am running for Congress to fight for a constitutional amendment that ends the practice of property taxes.” He called on state lawmakers to “enact meaningful, long-term change” on property taxes, and criticized proposals from Governor Kim Reynolds and Senate Republicans as “Band-Aid solutions.”

Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee chair Dan Dawson took exception to that column. He spent several minites criticizing Mitchell in a point of personal privilege on the Senate floor. Among other things, Dawson said Mitchell’s op-ed “makes no sense,” and the policy has little chance of becoming part of the U.S. Constitution. He characterized it as another promise that someone will take to D.C. and not fulfill, and closed on a sarcastic note: “I do believe Mr. Mitchell is strongly suited for Congress.”

I pulled this clip from the Senate’s official feed from March 12.

I interviewed Mitchell by phone on Monday, asking about his latest Des Moines Register column. He doesn’t have anyone specific in mind to replace the chamber’s leaders. But he feels strongly about the property tax issue, because he deals with renters every day and doesn’t think Iowa should be “treating renters as second-class citizens.” He also opposed the gas tax increase, which was part of the Senate’s original property tax reform plan.

Side note: I forgot to say during the show that I believe part of Mitchell’s op-ed was incorrect. He implied that Senate Republicans had pushed for a new tax on HMOs (health insurance providers) in March. To my knowledge, that plan to help cover Iowa’s Medicaid shortfall came out of the governor’s office and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services.

Why is Mitchell picking a fight with Senate Republicans? I can only speculate. He told me he got a number of calls from senators who weren’t happy about the op-ed, which he expected. But he also got calls to thank him for saying what other people were thinking. He thought the point needed to be made, and said he is running a different kind of campaign, compared to a lot of past Republicans.

We’ve reported before that Mitchell is taking some unorthodox (for a Republican) positions like supporting term limits, not taking corporate PAC donations, and seeking to ban stock trading for members of Congress. I wonder whether he believes standing up to powerful members of his own party could help him in the general election. Residents of Iowa’s second district voted for Trump by a roughly 10-point margin in 2024, but it’s not a solid red district. There are almost as many registered independents as Republicans.

By the way, I did seek comment from Dawson and Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh about Mitchell’s critique. They both told me on Monday that they would be responding eventually, but “not today.”

Why Iowa Republicans aren’t drawing new maps

Gerrymandering in other states has been one of the top political stories in the country this spring. So I thought it was worth explaining why Iowa’s GOP trifecta has not tried to redraw the Congressional map to shore up vulnerable incumbents. We spent about 90 seconds on this during the show. You can read my whole take here:

I don’t agree with everything the founders put in Iowa’s 1857 constitution, but we’re so fortunate they prohibited splitting counties into multiple Congressional districts. Without being able to split counties, it’s all but impossible to draw four solid red districts in Iowa. Our constitution is also among the most difficult to amend, so changing it would take years. Finally, our state’s redistricting law codifies some “best practices” like keeping cities and counties whole when possible and banning the use of partisan data when drawing new maps.

Governor signs property tax reform bill

I was at the capitol again on Monday as Reynolds signed Senate File 2472, overhauling the property tax system. You can watch remarks from Reynolds, Klimesh, Dawson, House Speaker Pat Grassley, and House Ways and Means chair Carter Nordman on my YouTube channel. (Nordman has a GOP primary challenger, so I think he needed this accomplishment.)

We’ve previously covered key points from the property tax bill; read more about it here, here, or here.

Monday’s event was a victory lap for the governor and GOP legislative leaders. Other stakeholders (local governments and school districts) were not represented. So this bill was not a consensus reform to the system. My contacts in local government generally feel that the final bill wasn’t as bad as some of the earlier drafts. However, it will force hard choices on cutting local services in the coming years.

Iowans won’t immediately see a change in their property tax bills. Some changes will happen next year, while others will phase in more gradually.

All public buildings must lower flags on governor’s order

On Friday Governor Reynolds signed more than two dozen bills into law. We couldn’t cover all of them, but we did follow up on one we’d mentioned before on the show. Senate File 2430 grew out of a controversy: last September, Johnson County Supervisor Jon Green refused to lower flags in memory of Charlie Kirk. Under the new law, flags must be lowered to half-staff at all public buildings in accordance with the governor’s orders.

After the House subcommittee on this bill, I asked the floor manager (State Representative Mark Thompson) about a possible future scenario. Under a Democratic governor, should all cities and counties, even in the reddest part of Iowa, have to lower the flag for, say, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton? Thompson said yes.

The bill ended up having bipartisan support: most House Democrats and seven Senate Democrats voted for it.

In case anyone was wondering (as I was) why flags were lowered on Friday, that was to honor Peace Officers Memorial Day.

That’s all for now! Next week we’ll have lots of news from the governor’s race and highlights from state candidate fundraising reports.