Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large)

Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large) has faced additional scrutiny ever since news broke recently that in 2011 he received $26,000 in money order campaign contributions from embattled businessman Jeffrey Thompson—and his challengers in the At-Large race aren’t sparing any opportunity to bring it up.

At two debates yesterday, At-Large hopefuls Peter Shapiro and Sekou Biddle took repeated shots at Orange, saying that the incumbent is part of the ethics problems that have roiled the city’s government over the last year. At a debate at the Black Cat, Shapiro was especially barbed in his criticism of Orange, calling his acceptance of questionable campaign contributions last year “criminal” and accusing him of dodging responsibility for the allegations.

“Either you knew or you didn’t,” said Shapiro of the provenance of the money orders Orange received, many of which were written in similar hand-writing, were purchased from the same location and were sequentially numbered. “Take responsibility for what happens in your campaign.”

Biddle also took shots at Orange, criticizing the incumbent for not realizing that there may have been something questionable in the amount of money that poured into his 2011 At-Large campaign in money order form.

Orange didn’t take the two-person attacks lightly, though, shifting between explanations over the money orders (they were but a small part of a $191,000 campaign contribution haul, he said) and direct attacks on both Shapiro and Biddle. In a particularly testy moment, Orange interrupted Shapiro to tell him what he honestly thought: “All you do is run at the mouth. You know nothing,” said the incumbent to the challenger. Orange also accused Shapiro of failing his constituents when he left his seat on the Prince George’s County Council in the middle of his second term, and said Biddle lacked experience on economic development.

The attacks didn’t just focus on Orange, though. Shapiro targeted Biddle, and E. Gail Anderson Holness, a third challenger, targeted all three of her fellow contenders, arguing that she was the only one among them not to have taken corporate contributions. In that, Holness seemed to do best—as the only woman in the race and something of a longshot contender, she playfully toyed with the fact that her male competitors were aggressively attacking each other. Comparing Orange, Biddle and Shapiro to big dogs who fight hard but tire quickly, Holness called herself the “little chihuahua” of the At-Large race, drawing laughs from the audience.

She may be nipping at some heels, but one awkward issue hung over the field at and after the Black Cat debate—there’s too many dogs still challenging Orange. City Paper Loose Lips columnist Alan Suderman raised the question of Biddle, Shapiro and Holness dividing the vote and allowing Orange an easy re-election victory, but none of the challengers hinted that they’d be willing to drop out. According to internal polling done by Orange’s campaign, in February he enjoyed support of 46 percent of likely Democratic voters, while Biddle took 15 percent and Shapiro nine percent.

The poll predated the most recent scandal that has engulfed Orange, though. With the attacks expected to continue from Biddle and Shapiro, will they be able to take enough of a bite out of his base?