Iowa's Senate Race Gets A Jolt

As we've been saying lately, Chuck Grassley's policy of naked and hyper-partisan obstructionism against President Obama's SCOTUS nominee has changed the dynamics of the Iowa Senate race. Once thought a safe seat, Iowa is now in play. Remember, Obama beat McCain there 54-44% and then beat Romney statewide 52-46%. There's no reason to think that a good, inspiring candidate wouldn't have a legitimate shot against Grassley, especially if Trump or Cruz is on the top of the Republican ticket.

Problemo: Chuck Schumer. He and Tester had the lame idea of recruiting a corporate shill to run as a Democrat, even though 3 credible Democrats candidates had already been running for months. One, Robb Hogg, a progressive state legislator had managed to win the support of the entire Democratic political class and another, Thomas Fiegen, has managed to make himself the carrier of Bernie's political revolution in the state. But, leave it to Little Chucky Schmucky; he found widely disliked DINO, Patty Judge. She's the wrong candidate for Iowa in a year when Iowa voters are looking for authenticity and an alternative to a corrupted establishment that has proven itself to not give a crap about ordinary working families. Being recruited and pushed by Wall Street's top hatchet man in Congress, Schumer, is the kiss of death in Iowa.

Blue America has not chosen between Rob Hogg and Thomas Fiegen-- although Fiegen is on the Bernie Congress page and many of our members are contributing to him. I asked him to catch us up a little with the dynamics of this race since Grassley went off the reservation and Schumer found himself a Schumercrat to run. We have invited a Rob Hogg partisan to make the case for him and we hope to publish that in a few days.

The 2016 Iowa Senate Race
by Thomas Fiegen

Citizen frustration has reached a boiling point in 2016. It is clear that everything in Washington, D.C. is for sale to the highest bidder. The disparity between the top 1% and working people has pushed our country to the breaking point.

I have represented working people all of my life. I see the frustration every day. I know the rules are rigged against them. I also know how to change those rules. I have the heart, the knowledge and the experience to be the next U.S. Senator from Iowa.

If we are going to preserve our democracy, the first step the next Senator from Iowa must take is to end the legalized bribery we call campaign contributions. Chuck Grassley has repeatedly sold his vote to people like convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Check out Abramoff’s interview on NPR about his $100,0000 contribution to Grassley.



Neither Rob Hogg nor Patty Judge will end the corrupt money in politics. The truth is no status-quo politician will end a system they rely on.

Iowa’s next Senator will write the next Farm Bill. Consumers are demanding food that is sustainable, local, fresh, healthy, includes GMO labeling and removes poisons from our environment. I have the extensive ag background and the fire to get it done. Do we really want Chuck Grassley, who has allowed the unparalleled consolidation of our farms sitting there another six years? How about Big Ag Patty Judge, or bank and insurance lawyer Rob Hogg?

The next Senator from Iowa must make the economy work for the 99%. It starts with rejecting bad trade deals, then passing Glass-Steagall, getting aggressive about antitrust, passing a minimum wage increase, finding an affordable college/student debt solution and improving retirement security. I have a Masters Degree in economics and taught college economics for almost ten years. I will approach all of these issues with an unconditional loyalty to working people.

The next Senator from Iowa will "advise and consent" on court nominations. I have reservations about Judge Garland’s pro-prosecutor bias and deference to the Executive Branch. Patty Judge said, "I’m not the lawyer.  I don’t know anything about that." That attitude alone disqualifies her from being a Senator. Meanwhile Rob Hogg has spent his professional life representing banks and insurance companies.

It is time for a U.S. Senator from Iowa to demonstrate unconditional loyalty to the working people of Iowa. I am that U.S. Senator.

DSCC Wants To Shove A Republican Lite Corporate Shill Down The Throats Of Iowa Democrats

With hyper-partisan Republican obstructionism kicked up into full gear, several Senate incumbents who looked relatively safe, no longer are. Most Americans want the Republicans to go through the process of giving the president their advice and consent on his Supreme Court nomination rather than just declaring that they will not-- under any circumstances-- even consider anyone he nominates. And no incumbent previously deemed "safe" by the insiders is more likely to feel the sting of public anger on that than 82-year old Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

New polling from PPP shows that 56% of Iowans want to see the Dcalia seat filled this year and that 66% feel the Senate should see who the president nominates before making a decision on confirming or not. 45% of voters (and 48% of independent voters) say if Grassley refuses confirmation hears it will make them less likely to vote for him, while 31% approve of that behavior and 24% say it won't effect their decision whether or not to vote for Grassley. 54% of Iowans blame Grassley and Mitch McConnell for the gridlock.

As we saw on Friday, once Schumer got wind that there might be a real race, he immediately steamrolled over the three grassroots progressive candidates, Tom Fiegen, Rob Hogg and Bob Krause and rolled out his Beltway-centric vision of what a good candidate for Iowa would be: disliked Big Ag relic, Patty Judge. Ed Fallon, a radio host who's show airs in Des Moines and Ames, remarked, sarcastically, "What a relief! Wall Street now has an Iowa Democrat it can get behind for U.S. Senate." He seemed as pissed off as every other Iowan I've spoken to this week.

Patty Judge's entry into the race last week was greeted with extensive coverage by Corporate Media, who largely have blown-off the other three Democrats in the race. The Des Moines Register's headline, "Patty Judge challenges Chuck Grassley," says it all, ignoring the reality that Judge is running not against Grassley but against Rob Hogg, Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen in the Democratic Primary. The winner of that race gets to face Grassley in the general election this fall.

And it shouldn't be Judge.

Her long history of support for Corporate Ag's agenda has hurt and continues to hurt Iowa farmers, our environment, our rural communities. I served with Judge at the Statehouse. I fought her anti family farm agenda when she was Secretary of Agriculture. I ran against her in what was then a five-person primary for Governor in 2006. Patty Judge and I go way back. Her allegiance lies with Big Money, and that reality will become clear as this race heats up.

For now, don't let Corporate Media fool you into believing Judge is the de-facto nominee, the only one who can beat Grassley. It is, alas, easy to be fooled, as I discovered running into a friend of mine yesterday. He's bright, progressive, very active in Democratic politics. Yet he told me he was supporting Judge. When I pointed out that Judge was horrible on issues he and I cared about, he agreed, but said he would vote for her because she was the most "electable."

How many more times will we fooled on the question of "electability?" Barack Hussein Obama-- by virtue of his name and skin color-- was initially deemed to be thoroughly unelectable. A few shoe-in, absolutely-the-most-electable candidates in recent Iowa history? Jim Ross-Lightfoot, Governor. Jim Nussle, Governor. Bruce Braley, U.S. Senate. Staci Appel, U.S. Congress. Yup. All were presented by Corporate Media and their Party Establishment as so "electable" they didn't even get primary opponents. All got their clocks cleaned in the general election.

What voters want is someone with a solid track record to assure us they will challenge the status quo and stand with people against special interests. Among the four Democrats running for the U.S. Senate nomination, there's no-one more tightly bound to the status quo than Patty Judge.

 If you'd like to help Bernie supporter Tom Fiegen replace Grassley, you can contribute to his campaign here, an ActBlue page dedicated to progressive congressional candidates running on Bernie's issues.

Republican Senate Incumbents Facing Angry Voters Over Knee-Jerk Obstructionism

We've mentioned that Republican obstructionism over the Supreme Court vacancy could hurt some of the Republican Senate incumbents, particularly Chuck Grassley in Iowa, who the DSCC had originally declared invulnerable. No one thinks he's invulnerable any longer and support is building for progressives Tom Fiegen and Rob Hogg, while the DSCC found themselves a Monsanto-backed corprate shill to get behind. PPP Senate results of surveys in four states bolsters the possibility that the GOP's bitter obstructionism against Obama is something they could pay for very dearly in November.

Tom Jensen from PPP suggests that all four states-- Arizona, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina, none of which were looked at as possible wins by the vision-free DSCC-- ate becoming competitive because of "voter anger over their Republican senators’ unwillingness to consider a replacement for Antonin Scalia." That McCain, Blunt and Burr already had mediocre approval numbers exacerbates the problem these Republicans are now facing.

Strong majorities of voters in each of these states want the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled this year. It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina. What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents-- it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Independent voters will be key to determining whether these incumbents sink or swim this fall, and they want the vacancy filled.

What voters especially have a problem with is Senate Republicans saying they’re going to reject President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court no matter who it is. Super-majorities of voters in all four of these states-- 69/25 in Arizona, 66/24 in Missouri, 66/25 in North Carolina, and 66/26 in Iowa say that the Senate should at least wait and see who’s put forward before deciding whether to confirm or deny that person. Even Republican voters-- 56/35 in Arizona, 54/38 in North Carolina, 52/37 in Missouri, and 50/39 in Iowa think their Senators are taking far too extreme of a position by saying they won’t approve President Obama’s choice without even knowing who that choice is.

The Supreme Court issue really could make a difference at the ballot box this fall. Voters by a 34 point margin in Arizona and Missouri, a 21 point margin in North Carolina, and a 14 point margin in Iowa say that they’re less likely to vote for their Republican Senators this fall if they refuse to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court no matter who it is. This is again something where we find the Republican Senators could particularly pay a price with independent voters. Independents in Arizona say 61/18 they’re less likely to vote for John McCain because of this issue, and it’s 55/16 for Richard Burr with them in North Carolina, 55/20 for Roy Blunt with them in Missouri, and 48/24 for Chuck Grassley with them in Iowa.

First Arizona, where McCain is lucky enough to just have to deal with a weak challenge from an especially odious New Dem backbencher, Ann Kirkpatrick:

Second-- Iowa, where Grassley is far more vulnerable than Chuck Schumer and Jon Tester had decided. Hogg or Fiegen could beat him.

Third is Missouri, another state Schumer and Tester were ready to write off:

And last, here are the results from North Carolina, another state with a very weak Republican incumbent, Richard Burr, that Schumer and Tester were perfectly satisfied with ignoring, at least once they failed to persuade their favorite Blue Dog, Heath Shuler, to jump in.

Little Chucky Schmucky Finds Another Race He Can Screw Up-- This Time In Iowa

Patty and Chucky

The DSCC deemed Iowa a lost cause this cycle, despite the fact that Obama won the state in 2008 (54-44%) and 2012 (52-46%). So they didn't both recruiting a candidate and just shrugged their shoulders and ignored the 3 progressives who jumped in, legislators Tom Fiegen, Rob Hogg and Bob Krause. But when the incumbent, 82-year old Republican Chuck Grassley chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threw a tantrum and said he will refuse to hold hearings on any nominee who President Obama nominates, regardless of their qualifications, public opinion in Iowa started turning against him enough for the DC Dems to notice. Grassley has been in elected office since 1959 and in DC since 1975 but Chuck Schumer decided he was invincible... until the GOP contretemps over Scalia's death.

Instead of embracing one of the local candidates, Schumer big-footed in with a corporate shill more to his liking, a much-disliked former Lt. Governor, Patty Judge. Most Democratic activists consider her a DINO or a Republican with a "D" next to her name. One told me she's "pro-industrial agriculture and pro-GMO, as anti-labor as a Republican and in favor of the corporate trade agenda [like NAFTA and the TPP that Iowa Democrats hate]. She's not a climate change believer/advocate, except to promote corn ethanol and sees widely viewed by Iowans as having a very abrasive personality. As Lt. Governor, she ran the executive branch but when she ran for governor in the Democratic primary she got zero traction. Culver picked her as his running mate and she gladly took the lifeline. They spent the entire 2010 election apologizing for their arrogant (and wrong) decisions. The television commercials were all apologies. They started the race over 20 points behind and lost by a little over 10 points. Even though Terry Branstad has been a disaster, there's no love for Culvern or Judge except in the industrial ag sector. If she manages to get the signatures she'll have lots of Monsanto money and big ag money."

Clearly, Schumer and his pathetic DSCC puppet Tester are hedging their bets or think they can scare Grassley, who's probably laughing at their efforts. The effort kind of reminded me of Romney barking at Herr Trumpf yesterday, the establishment's last stand. Democrats promoting her think she can appeal to the center/right, but that's now the Republican Party in Iowa and pretty much devoted to Grassley.

One immediate challenge for her-- to qualify for the ballot Judge needs to gather more than 2,000 signatures, and get them from at least 10 different counties-- and she has two weeks to do it; deadline is March 18. Wednesday Fiegen turned in almost 10,000 signatures from every corner of the state. He's a supporter of Bernie's and endorses the economic reforms Bernie has been calling for, including campaign finance reform, breaking up the big banks, raising the minimum wage, student loan reform and Medicare for all. "I am a candidate with no super-PAC. I don't want their money. That's because I don't represent billionaire interests. I represent working Iowans. Our system has fallen far out of balance and it's time to fix it."

Fiegen is counting on support from grassroots Democrats while Judge and Hogg will be in a battle as proxies for, respectively, the DC and Des Moines establishments. She's got Schumer and Tester and whoever Schumer can round up to endorse her, while local grandees like Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronsta and Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum say their support for Hogg is solid and something to the effect of 'Schumer should go tend to the folks in New York's Southern Tier who would probably skin him alive if they ever got their hands on him,' only more colorful.

Chuck Grassley's Obstructionist Role In Blocking President Obama's Judicial Nominee

Senatorial obstructionist clown show, Mitch and Chuck

If you've been following along with the news about President Obama replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, you no doubt noticed that the Republicans have dragged us to the brink of an unprecedented Constitutional crisis. As far as I can tell, this is the first time in the country’s history where a hyper-partisan gaggle of right-wing senators are blatantly and explicitly refusing to do the job the constitution assigns them of examining the president's judicial nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), almost with minutes of Justice Scalia's death, said they would not consider anyone, no matter how qualified or how stellar, President Obama nominates. Now that is the kind of obstructionism that the American people are sick and tired of. McConnell and Grassley aren't being truthful when they claim that there have never been any election-year appointments to the Supreme Court.  In the past, six Supreme Court Justices have filled a vacancy during an election year, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Reagan in November and confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate, 97-0, less than three months later (in February, 1988).

According to The Hill yesterday, some legal experts claim Senate Republicans are exceeding their constitutional powers by refusing to hold a hearing on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. In a call with reporters, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, said Republicans’ decision not to hold a hearing, vote or even a meeting on the nominee is unprecedented. "I can’t identify any other instance where a Senate Judiciary [Committee] has ever said it wouldn’t hold a hearing," he said.

The 8 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who said they would ignore any nominee that President Obama asks them to consider were Chairman Grassley, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). None of these senators are in a vulnerable electoral situation this year-- either because they are not up for reelection, like Graham and Hatch, or because they represent a deep red state with a moribund Democratic Party, like Jeff Sessions and Mike Lee-- with one exception... Chairman Grassley of Iowa, a purple state.

As Carl Hulse reported today for the NY Times, "Grassley has seemed uneasy with the situation both in Iowa and in Washington. As photographers stalked him on Tuesday outside the Senate chamber, he raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating... 'Senator Grassley has surrendered every pretense of independence and let the Republican leader annex the Judiciary Committee into a narrow, partisan mission of obstruction and gridlock,' said Harry Reid." By this afternoon Reid and Grassley were in a public spat.

Grassley: "Childish tantrums aren't appropriate for the Senate."

Reid: "A childish tantrum? When we're asking him to do his job? He's chairman of a committee. He should hold hearings, report people out. By refusing to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, or hold a vote, they undermine the presidency, the Constitution and the United States Senate."

We asked Tom Fiegen, the progressive Democrat running for Grassley's seat, if Iowa voters are paying attention and if they're wondering why Grassley is putting a narrow partisan GOP ideology ahead of the best interests of the country, not to mention his own constitutional duty. Please take a look at what Tom had to say below and if you'd like to help his election, he's on the Blue America ActBlue page for candidates who have endorsed Bernie and are running on the same issues that have motivated his campaign. This is the link to that page.  

To Understand U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, Follow The Money
-by Tom Fiegen,
Candidate for U.S. Senate, Iowa

Senator Grassley has declared in writing his refusal to interview a replacement judge for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. What's much more interesting is what's behind Chuck Grassley's obstructionism. We have to look behind the curtain to see who is pulling his strings. 

It's the big money contributors.

We're talking about really big money pulling Chuck Grassley's strings. It is the wealthiest of the wealthy, the one-tenth of 1% who consider an Obama Supreme Court nominee a profound threat to their grip on power. Bribes in the guise of campaign contributions might no longer work if the balance on the Supreme Court shifted.

These powerful oligarchs are the ones who really employ and pay Chuck Grassley. They have told him to do whatever it takes to preserve their power. A conservative Supreme Court has given the billionaires and oligarchs the political and economic power to run the country since Reagan. They don’t want to take a chance on losing that power. That’s why Chuck Grassley put his refusal to do his job in writing: to reassure the billionaires and the oligarchs that he is following their orders, not ours.

Senator Grassley’s written refusal to do his job is more than the usual partisan political games. This time, everything we care about as American citizens hangs in the balance as a 4 -4 split Supreme Court punts on all the important issues. Things like: police brutality, employer spying, Citizens United, government intrusion into our private lives, corporate fraud, unfair tax havens for the super-wealthy, poisons in our environment, and the very Constitution itself.  Leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year will mean that our last line of defense against Big Brother government and the billionaire robber barons will be frozen in a perpetual 4 - 4 tie.

82 year old Senator Grassley is running for another six year term this year. Do we really want to reelect a career politican who is willing to put our Constitutional freedoms at risk to please his billionaire contributors?

My name is Tom Fiegen. I am running in the Democratic primary in Iowa to retire Chuck Grassley. I have spent my career representing working people. I am not taking super-PAC money. I am the son of sharecropper parents who worked hard to buy a farm of their own and then faced foreclosure during the Farm Crisis of the 1980s.  If you think a United States Senator should do their job, and represent the people, not the billionaires and the oligarchs, help me retire Chuck Grassley. As Bernie Sanders says, "enough is enough."

Iowa's Progressive Senate Candidate Tom Fiegen Endorses Bernie Sanders

On his website, Iowa Senate candidate Tom Fiegen explains that he supports Bernie Sanders "because he has demonstrated unconditional support for working people since he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont 34 years ago. He tells the truth." Feigen, who is running against somewhat doddering right-wing senator Chuck Grassley-- first elected, very narrowly, to Congress in 1974-- right after Nixon was driven from office (and just as the GOP was losing dozens of seats across the nation, including 2 in Iowa). Everyone, nationally, who was, like Grassley, first elected that day has either died or retired, including well-known politicians like Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chris Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Max Baucus (D-MT), Paul Tsongas (D-MA), Larry Pressler (R-SD), Henry Waxman (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Norman Mineta (D-CA), Henry Hyde (R-IL), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jim Florio (D-NJ), Abner Mikva (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL)... except Grassley.

There are three Democrats running to replace him, state Sen. Rob Hogg, ex-state Sen. Tom Fiegen and ex-state Rep. Bob Krause. No Blue Dogs, New Dems or corporate whores in that trio. What drew our attention to Fiegen was his endorsement of Bernie Sanders and Bernie's platform and his commitment to run on those issues.

Fiegen shares similar stances with Senator Bernie Sanders, including repealing Citizens United.

“I want to fix the bribery of politicians in the guise of campaign contributions,” Mr. Fiegen said. “People throw around the reference to Citizens United, but the problem is much more systemic and ingrained than that.”

Mr. Fiegen cites an NPR story from 2012 about convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In the piece, Mr. Abramoff explains how he donated $100,000 to Mr. Fiegen’s opponent, incumbent U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, in exchange for allowing his client, Tyco International, to evade paying billions in taxes.

You can read Fiegen's whole endorsement statement here and you can contribute to his campaign here. I asked him to write a guest post on an issue most DWT readers are unaware of but that is of crucial concern to people in Iowa.

Water And Agricultural Poisons
by Thomas Fiegen

In farm country, we have a problem. A lot of us can’t drink the water because of the ag poisons in it, and more of us are dying of cancer caused by the same ag poisons.

Here in Iowa, 60 cities and towns have nitrate levels in their water supply too high to drink. The community of Des Moines, Iowa spends over $7,000 a day to remove nitrate from the source of its water, the Raccoon River. Plus it is looking at new filtration equipment which will cost north of $140 million to replace the current system. Two of the Top 10 cancers in Iowa in 2015, thyroid and ovarian cancer, are directly linked to high nitrate in our water.

In addition to nitrate, we also have a problem with all the weed spray that we are being doused with by a few of our chemically addicted farmers. At the top of the list is glyphosate aka Roundup™. According to a story in April of this year by National Geographic, Roundup was invented in 1974. By 1987, we were applying 11 million pounds of Roundup in this country. Last year, it was up to 300 million pounds. Roundup is now so pervasive in our environment that 75% of the rain collected by the U.S. Geological Survey now contains Roundup. The National Geographic also sampled soybeans in 300 randomly selected bins across the Corn Belt and 90% contained Roundup. In March of this year, the World Health Organization, after a review of over 900 studies, concluded that Roundup is a causal agent for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In 2015, non-Hodgkins lymphoma is also one of the Top 10 cancers in Iowa.

The Iowa College of Public Health has kept extensive records on Iowa cancer deaths by type and county since 1973.  In 1975, before Roundup was in use, and before corn on corn on corn to supply corn ethanol, according to the Iowa College of Public Health, we had 5,320 cancer deaths in Iowa. This year, after 40 years of medical progress in treating cancer, we will have over 6,400 cancer deaths in Iowa. That is an additional 1,100 cancer deaths per year.  My home town of Clarence, Iowa is 1,100 people. That is like wiping out an extra entire town of Clarence every year. How many more family and friends are we willing to lose early to cancer so that a few farmers can poison themselves and all of us with ag poisons?

I have visited 86 of the 99 counties in Iowa so far this year. The farm wives and widows get it. One widow, a survivor of thyroid cancer, told me how her husband had flu-like symptoms whenever he sprayed weeds on their farm. She told me that she could smell the chemicals on his clothes when she washed them. She knew something was not right, but she did not put her finger on it. Her husband died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She has had multiple tumors since her initial battle with thyroid cancer. She told me that she now knows that the ag chemicals they used was the reason she is a widow and has cancer. I have heard story after story like the one from this widow as I travel around Iowa. When I was a young boy in school, all of our bus drivers were retired 75 - 80 year old farmers. In my community today, we do not have many 75 - 80 year old retired farmers. They have all died of cancer and their wives have retired to town as widows.

Here is how we can fix the problem. First, we ban bribes of Congress under the guise of political contributions aka Citizens United. For too long chemical companies have been able to “buy” favorable legislation and regulations. Next, we need to amend and enforce the Clean Water Act to limit non-point sources of poisons. The next Farm Bill should also include not only a mandatory conservation requirement to quality for any federal subsidy or payment, but also a mandatory water purity requirement for ag runoff. We also need to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to remove the blanket immunity for chemical manufacturers and applicators, and instead impose strict liability for damages to people and property caused by ag poisons. Finally, we need to teach our farmers good and sustainable management practices to reduce and ultimately end their reliance on ag chemicals to grow crops.

We know how to grow food without chemicals. We have done it for centuries. If we are going to reduce and end needless cancer deaths in rural America, and survive as a species on this planet, we need to go back to growing food sustainably with limited or no chemicals. 

Again, please consider helping Tom Fiegen replace Chuck Grassley as the Senator from Iowa, something you can do at this special ActBlue page dedicated to progressives running for Congress who have endorsed Bernie Sanders.