Analysis: Walsh “incumbency” not much of an advantage

State media outfits aren’t very enthusiastic about Gov. Steve Bullock’s approach to naming Sen. Max Baucus’ replacement in the U.S. Senate.

Three of Lee Newspapers largest dailies published highly critical editorials over the past week slamming Bullock for his “lack of transparency” in picking his former running mate and presumptive Democratic nominee, Lt. Gov. John Walsh, to be  Baucus’ replacement in the Senate.

The Missoulian, in an editorial that was reprinted in Walsh’s hometown Butte paper, The Montana Standard, said Bullock “should not have appointed his lieutenant governor,” and criticized Bullock for doing so “without even an attempt at transparency” or the “barest explanation of his reasoning.”

The Billings Gazette blasted the Democrats for playing “closed-door power politics.” The Gazette, like most pundits, believes Walsh’s appointment is an attempt by Senate Democrats to boost the party’s chances of maintaining a slim majority – or even a tie –  come November. If the Democrats lose the Senate, then President Barack Obama will become one of the lamest ducks in modern presidential history in the remaining two years of his term in office.

As the Gazette correctly points out:

“…whoever Bullock appoints could help tip the congressional balance of power to the Republicans or keep it in Democrats’ hands. Either way, the stakes are high and the ramifications huge.”

Walsh, who is now the incumbent U.S. Senator from Montana, almost certainly will enjoy a fundraising advantage he wouldn’t have had without the appointment.

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart called Obama’s choice of  Baucus as the next U.S. envoy to China, and Bullock’s appointment of Walsh to take his place, a kind of “non-financial corruption”:

“To be fair to Baucus, he did not raise money for the president, he actually stepped down from the Senate so the Democratic governor of Montana could appoint his replacement, making it more likely that Democrats will retain the Senate.”

On the one hand, all the hand-wringing over Walsh’s appointment seems  predictable and a little over the top. (And for anyone to suggest that Republicans wouldn’t have pulled a similar stunt if the shoe were on the other foot is either naïve or disingenuous.)

It strikes me, too, that the transparency argument might be a bit of a straw man. It was Bullock’s choice to make. Bullock is a Democrat. Baucus is a Democrat. Democrats have held that seat for 100 years. Of course Bullock was going to choose a Democrat.  And since Bullock endorsed Walsh for the seat back in November, it should come as no surprise that he would pick Walsh. 

And where is it written that if a senator steps down from his or her seat upon appointment by the president to a diplomatic post, then the senator’s party must give up the incumbency advantage ?

Like it or not, Baucus, and the Democrats, earned that incumbency advantage by beating Republicans in six consecutive Senate races. That advantage is part of the game, though I really don’t think Walsh will benefit much from it in this case.

Had Baucus stayed in the race he most certainly would have faced a tougher reelection challenge than he’s had in the past 12 years, but he still would have been the favorite to win.  Walsh is now the incumbent, which gives him a fundraising edge he would otherwise not have had. But how great of an advantage is it, really?

Walsh doesn’t have 35 years of Senate experience, seniority or committee chairmanships under his belt like his predecessor had. There’s only so much time for him to introduce bills, cast votes and make floor speeches between now and November. In an election year most incumbents spend more time on the campaign trail than in the office, and votes of consequence are few in election years.

Walsh is going to be splitting time between learning a new job in Washington, D.C. and introducing himself to voters in Montana, most of whom don’t really know anything about him or the issues he stands for.

The presumptive GOP nominee, first-term Republican Congressman Steve Daines, has already won a statewide federal race and is way ahead in fundraising. One could make the argument that Walsh’s appointment – if he wins the nomination in June — simply levels the financial playing field in what would amount to an “incumbent vs. incumbent” race.

It seems to me what critics of this process really want is for Bullock or Walsh to admit what everyone already knows: the Democrats are going to do everything they can to keep control of the Senate.

The question is whether the plan will backfire.

Democrats get their chance to vet Bullock’s decision in June when the party faithful go to the polls and cast their votes in the primary election.

If Walsh is indeed his party’s nominee, then come November the rest of Montana will get a chance to weigh-in.

Rep. Knudsen loses his job over bills that irked the oil and gas industry

Culbertson Republican Rep. Austin Knudsen lost his job at the O’Toole Law Firm in Plentywood last session in part because he sponsored two pieces of legislation that were opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Emails between Board of Oil and Gas Conservation administrator Tom Richmond and Dave Galt, executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, indicate that Larry O’Toole, Knudsen’s boss, planned to fire the junior law partner due to Knudsen’s support of a pair of measures aimed at giving landowners and mineral rights owners greater protections.

The emails, which were obtained by the Montana Environmental Information Center, stated that Larry O’Toole was watching a House committee hearing on House Bill 406 and and House Bill 431 at the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation offices in Billings when he told board geologist Jim Halvorson that Knudsen, an attorney, may be looking for a new job.

In a Feb. 19 email Richmond wrote to Galt:

“Larry O’Toole sat with Jim (Halvorson) Friday and watched the law partner’s (Knudsen) performance during these two hearings on the Internet in Jim’s office….said law partner maybe hanging out his own shingle pretty soon!....Larry said almost all of the people testifying in favor were relatives of the Representative….O’Toole Law Firm not pleased.”

Richmond followed up later saying that Loren O’Toole, Larry’s father, called Larry during the hearing to tell him:

“he needs to fire Austin.”

O’Toole did not return phone calls seeking comment on the email exchange.

The O’Toole Law Firm is one of only a handful of law firms in the state that handles complex oil and gas cases before the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. Knudsen said Larry O’Toole represents many clients in the oil and gas industry.

Knudsen confirmed that O’Toole asked him for his resignation shortly after the committee hearing on the two bills.

“The fact is I ran a couple of bills that were perceived as anti-oil industry and it upset some people,” Knudsen said.

Knudsen, seen by many political watchers as a rising star in the Republican Party, was elected to the leadership by his caucus and in January GOP leaders tapped him for the high-profile job of responding to Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock’s state of the state speech.

Unconfirmed rumors of Knudsen’s firing reverberated throughout the Capitol during the Legislative session, but the incident never made headlines.

Knudsen said he previously thought O’Toole asked him for his resignation because of the burden his legislative service put on the firm. Knudsen said he heard the rumors, but he said he didn’t know they were true until he learned last week of the email exchange uncovered by MEIC.

“Me serving in the Legislature for two sessions was very tough on the firm,” Knudsen said. “It was just Larry and I and when you’ve got me spending four or five months out of the year in Helena not doing work and doing legislative stuff, it’s tough on business,” Knudsen said. “As far as I knew that was the reason because that was the conversation Larry and I had.”

The two bills Knudsen sponsored had to do with oil and gas development impacts on surface rights owners and “forced pooling” of mineral rights holders.

HB431 would have required any damages from oil and gas development on surface owner’s land be calculated based on the “best reasonably available use” of the land. Previously most damage calculations were primarily based on agricultural uses.

The second bill, HB406, would have reduced the penalties and increased the royalty payments for mineral rights owners who are “force pooled.” Under Montana law mineral rights owners who are unwilling to lease their mineral rights are barred from preventing other mineral rights owners in the same tract from developing their mineral rights. Those who refuse to sign leases are “force pooled” meaning they are given an average mineral lease, and an eighth of the share of the working oil drilling operation’s royalties. They are forced to pay out of those royalties a penalty that helps cover part of the costs of the working interest.

HB406 would have reduced those penalties and increased the royalties for mineral rights owners who were forced into a pool. The measure would have made Montana law similar to current laws in neighboring North Dakota.

“There a lot of oil and gas exploration going on in my district. My family has had to deal with these issues. I’ve got neighbors and constituents who have had to deal with these issues. There gets to be a lot of tension and a lot of landowner problems,” Knudsen said. “Right now we’ve got statutes in place that protect those landowners and requires them to be compensated for damages, but the statute is very week and sometimes they are completely ignored by the companies.”

Both measures were opposed by the Montana Petroleum Association. HB431 was amended and eventually passed both houses and a conference committee before Gov. Steve Bullock signed it into law. HB406, which faced more vehement opposition by the industry, died in committee.

Galt said he worked with Knudsen to amend HB431, but he said the industry feared that HB406 would become an incentive for mineral rights owners to not sign reasonable lease offers from developers.

“It changes the whole economic well,” Galt said. “It was a big deal to us. These bills were huge deals and they were of great concern.”

Galt said he had nothing to do with Knudsen’s firing and he said he didn’t know anything about it until he received that email from Richmond.

“I did not have any conversation with the O’Tooles, Larry or Loren, and I do not know of anybody in the industry who did,” Galt said. “When I heard this happened I went and talked to Austin and I told him that. I thought it was an unfortunate situation. I don’t operate like that and I don’t believe that’s the right way to operate. I told him that.”

For his party Richmond said he regretted passing along the information to Galt via email. Richmond said the board did not take a position on either bill, but rather kept track of where various interests lined up in support or opposition. Richmond said he sent the email to Galt because it illustrated the heated passions on both sides of the issue.

“I think at the time we were just kind of concerned about where the bill was going, and who was supporting it and who was opposing it,” Richmond said. “I think it was a matter of passing the knowledge along so people would know where people stood.”

Richmond said it was “unfortunate” that O’Toole made the comments about firing Knudsen while in the board’s Billings office.

“It’s an unfortunate thing that that happened in our office, and I shouldn’t have spread the rumor any further than that,” Richmond said. “We were just trying to keep track back and forth who had a position and what their position was.”

Derf Johnson, MEIC’s assistant program director and the man who uncovered the emails through a freedom of information request, said he was deeply troubled to learn that a sitting legislator had lost his job because of his position on legislation.

Though MEIC supported HB431 and HB406, Johnson said the environmental group was not happy with Knudsen’s overall record on the environment. However, Johnson said Knudsen got a “raw deal.”

“It was incredibly alarming that the sponsor of a bill that would have impacted the oil and gas industry lost his job. That would be my most immediate concern with the emails,” Johnson said. “To me it suggests that there was some political retribution for stance he took at the Legislature and for supporting bills important to his constituents.”

Johnson said he requested the emails because he wanted to better understand the relationship between the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation and the industry it regulates during the legislative process. He said the 63 pages of emails demonstrates a maybe too-friendly relationship between the industry and its primary regulating entity.

“We certainly don’t have the kind of access to the Board of Oil and Gas that the industry does. I think these emails show that,” Johnson said.

Knudsen, who is working on his own and helping out with his family’s farm, said he is not surprised to learn that his dismissal from the O’Toole Law Firm was related to his support of those two measures.

“I knew there was going to be resistance to these bills, especially from the industry,” Knudsen said. “I’m not out to stick it to the industry, but these are issues I’m passionate about. I dealt with them it personally in my family and I’ve dealt with it with my neighbors and my clients. When you’ve got a section of code that’s meant to protect the surface owners and there’s no teeth tho it, well then I think we’ve got a problem. That’s why I brought the bill.”

Read the full email exchange in DocumentCloud online at www.greatfallstribune.com.

Tester, Baucus dismiss claims they sunk Schweitzer’s Senate bid

U.S. Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus denied accusations levied by sources close to former Gov. Brian Schweitzer that Montana’s two Democratic senators were responsible for Schweitzer’s surprise decision to not seek a U.S. Senate seat in 2014.

Speaking to reporters Friday at the state Capitol following the announcement of a $2 million Blackstone LaunchPad grant for the University of Montana and Montana State University, Tester said the anonymous claims he or his political team “stuck knives” in the former governor’s U.S. Senate bid are “baloney.”

“We did nothing to inhibit him from running,” Tester said.

Schweitzer was considered by many political observers to be the Democrats’ best chance of retaining Baucus’ seat in 2014. Democrats have controlled that seat for a century, and polls showed the popular Schweitzer was the most competitive contender in a field that has not yet come into focus. Despite his oft-repeated rhetoric about the ills and aromas emanating from Washington, D.C. and Capitol Hill, most political insiders believed Schweitzer was in fact preparing to run for the Senate.

A recent article in the Australian online publication Business Insider cited several anonymous sources involved with Schweitzer’s supposed planned bid to replace the retiring Baucus. The article made waves on social media Thursday on anonymous claims that Schweitzer was going to announce his campaign on July 15, but that “bad blood” between he and Montana’s two sitting senators led him to bow out of the race.

Tester said he has “no idea” why anonymous sources close to Schweitzer would accuse the junior senator of “torpedoing” his campaign.

“I don’t have time for this stuff, even if I wanted to, which I don’t,” Tester said. “Brian Schweitzer was our best chance of winning this race. He could have probably done everything without me. He didn’t need me. The truth of the matter is that’s a fact. It’s going to be a lot more work for me now.”

Tester may have taken a slight jab at Schweitzer on the podium earlier in the day when he introduced current Gov. Steve Bullock, calling him a “breath of fresh air.” But Tester insisted reports that he had any animosity toward Schweitzer or did anything to upend his possible Senate bid are false.

“You know Brian Schweitzer. You know me. Does that shoe fit?” Tester said. “That I would actually try to go after him just doesn’t fit. I mean it’s not who I am. I’m not that kind of a person.”

Baucus, who was also present for the launch of the Blackstone grant, said he “wasn’t terribly surprised”  Schweitzer chose not to run for the Senate.

“I’ve never met anybody...who wants to decide for himself more than Brian Schweitzer,” Baucus said. “Brian is a very smart guy and a very good governor. I have not talked to Brian since that decision, but he obviously has his own reasons. But it was up to Brian, whatever those reasons are.”

Schweitzer, who recently took over as chairman of Stillwater Mining Co. board of directors, told reporters that he doesn’t want to leave Montana for Washington, D.C. Schweitzer hasn’t personally commented on the rumors that Tester or Baucus had anything to do with his decision to not enter the Senate race, but multiple stories quoting anonymous sources from all three camps have painted a picture of “bad blood” between the former Democratic governor and the state’s two Democratic senators.

Baucus waved off any implication that he or his staff were not supportive of Schweitzer’s bid to replace him.

“I think Brian was kind of conflicted whether he wanted this job in the first place,” Baucus said.

Schweitzer did not answer a call seeking comment.

Schweitzer aide’s PO Box ‘only connection’ to dark money PAC

A former top aide to Brian Schweitzer said his personal post office box is the only connection between the former governor and a pair of dark money political groups in the news this week.

On Monday, FOX Business News reported that Schweitzer, a potential 2014 Democratic front-runner for Montana’s open U.S. Senate seat, in 2009 formed a 527 political action committee that later gave more than $300,000 to a Washington, D.C.-based political nonprofit.

FOX’s David Asman alleged the Helena and Washington-based nonprofit groups appeared to have been formed for the sole purpose of doing political work for Schweitzer, a violation of IRS rules.

Asman connected the Helena-based PAC Council for Sustainable America to Schweitzer because on the group’s 2010 990 report to the IRS it listed the same Helena post office box address as Schweitzer’s 2008 gubernatorial campaign.

Franklin Hall, a former senior adviser to Schweitzer, called FOX News’ charge bogus and said Schweitzer never had any involvement in either group.

“The only connection whatsoever between the governor’s campaign and the entity that was shut down three years ago (Council for Sustainable America) is my personal P.O. Box,” Hall said.

Hall said he has been a political consultant since 2004. Prior to moving to Montana, Hall did consulting work for the Democratic Governor’s Association, which Schweitzer chaired in 2009. Hall later moved to Helena, where he did private consulting work until Schweitzer hired him in November 2010 as senior adviser.

Hall said the Council for Sustainable America was one of his clients from before the time he worked for Schweitzer in the governor’s office. Hall said after Schweitzer won re-election in 2008 the governor shut down his political campaign, but since the campaign still had some money left over it was required by law to file campaign reports.

“The entity still existed because there was leftover money,” Hall explained. “That entity was required to do regular reports with the commissioner of political practices, and when you fill out those forms, you are required to have a mailing address.”

Hall said the campaign did not have any employees or an office, so he volunteered his personal post office box address to be used on the defunct campaign’s filings. Hall said he used that same address on IRS reports filed for the Council for Sustainable America.

Hall said the Council for Sustainable America shut down in the first quarter of 2010.

In March 2009, the Council for Sustainable America received a $335,000 contribution from the Democratic Governor’s Association, three months after Schweitzer was elected chair of that organization.

During the first quarter of 2010, the group liquidated its remaining funds, totaling $306,779, to the American Sustainability Project, a 501(c)(4) political nonprofit with a registered address in Washington, D.C.

The Helena-based group’s 2010 IRS 990 form was prepared by a law firm at the same address the America Sustainability Project lists on its 990: 1666 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.

Former Rep. Dave Gallik, D-Helena, the man Schweitzer appointed in 2011 as Commissioner of Political Practices, was treasurer of the Helena-based group until it dissolved in 2010. Gallik’s signature appeared on the group’s 2010 990 form in August 2011, but Hall said the group had not been active for more than a year at that point and the 990 filing was a required formality.

The Council for Sustainable America lists its “primary exempt purpose” as “educating voters about elected officials and candidates.”

According to its 2010 IRS form 990, the group spent $57,972 conducting opinion polls “to determine voter opinion on sustainable energy, the environment and agriculture policies.”

The group also gave $2,500 to Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley’s 2010 re-election campaign.

Hall said the purpose of the organization was to educate voters about sustainability issues.

Will typically dull GOP officers convention offer any surprises? Eh … probably not.

Political party officers conventions aren’t usually very exciting events.

At an officer’s convention the party faithful gather to take a look at the rules and bylaws of the party, eat, drink and be merry, attend speeches and workshops, and then near the end of the two-day convention delegates from around the state cast their votes to elect a the next chair, vice chair, secretary and treasurer of the party.

In most cases we know who the next chairperson will be going into the event. It’s been years since the Montana GOP has a serious contest for party chairman and the rest of the officer positions have very little actual power within the party.

For the most part, officers conventions are dull gatherings to the outside observer.  Unlike the platform and candidate conventions there usually isn’t a whole lot of energy surrounding these much smaller affairs. After all, how many Montana voters know who their party officers are…or care? It’s ‘inside baseball' politics that only the most committed party members pay much attention to. That goes for Republicans and Democrats.

However, the Montana GOP’s officers convention in Bozeman at the end of the week has the potential for a little more excitement than in years past.  I don’t expect there to be too much in the way of fireworks, but here’s a rundown of some possibly interesting developments heading into Friday’s convention:

Three-way race for chair

It’s been well documented that the Montana GOP is not, at the moment, a unified party. The chairman race highlights one of divisions within the party.

Incumbent party chair Will Deschamps, of Missoula, is being challenged by Don Hart, of Bozeman, and Gary Carlson, of Victor.

Most of the so-called “liberty Republicans,” many of whom are Ron Paul supporters, are said to be backing Hart. The more mainstream or “establishment” Republicans are throwing their support to Deschamps, who has already served two two-year terms as Montana GOP chair. Carlson may draw votes from both camps, but it’s not clear where his base, if any, stems from.

Former Rep. Derek Skees, R-Whitefish, is leading the charge for Hart as part of what he called a “anybody but Deschamps” movement within the party.

Skees, was lost his statewide race for State Auditor last fall, said the opposition to Deschamps is high among Montana Republicans because of the poor GOP record in statewide races over the past four years.

But the chairmanship race a three-way race, which means Carlson and Hart will likely divide any opposition to Deschamps. If all three stay in the race my guess is Deschamps wins reelection to a third term by a relatively comfortable margin. Do as many as 60 percent of the delegates oppose Deschamps’ chairmanship, as Skees claims? We’ll see.

But as the incumbent who has built strong ties to the party establishment it’s unlikely Deschamps will be defeated by an insurgent in a three-way race. All he needs is a majority of votes to hang on to his seat.

Skees is supporting a proposed change to the GOP bylaws that could shake up the they way delegates elect officers in the future. Under the proposal the successful nominee for party chair would need to receive 50 percent of the overall vote.

According to party executive director Bowen Greenwood, even if the GOP rules committee recommends the proposal and the Central Committee adopts it, the new bylaw wouldn’t take effect until the next officers election in 2015. The change would also require a 2/3 vote from the voting delegates, which seems unlikely.

‘Proxy battle’ in race for vice chair

The very public division between legislative Republicans may play out in the race for vice chair, where Sen. Jennifer Fielder, of Thompson Falls, is challenging incumbent Rep. Christy Clark, of Choteau.

While the race for vice chair rarely garners much attention, some Republicans say this year’s vice chair election is proxy battle: A Fielder win will show that the majority of the party faithful support the hardline stances of the conservatives in the GOP Senate leadership. A Clark victory means the GOP faithful want leaders who are willing to work across on the aisle on major policy issues.

Fielder, who is backed by Senate President Jeff Essmann, represents the right-wing of the party.

Fielder is the president of the Women in Republican Leadership, or WIRL. Fielder said it was through her involvement in that organization that was urged by colleagues to run for the vice chair position and that she wasn’t recruited to run for the spot.

However, Essmann acknowledged last week that his support of Fielder is a follow-through on a promise he made to Clark last session that he would support her removal from office.

Clark approached Essmann during the session to find out why one of her bill,s which had passed the House by a wide margin, hadn’t been assigned to a committee.

Essmann told Clark he was not pleased with the fact that she changed her vote on third reading from ‘yeah’ to ‘nay’ on a Montana Family Foundation-backed school choice bill that was a priority for the conservative leadership team.

Clark, a majority whip in the House, represents the self-described “responsible Republican” coalition in the House and Senate. Clark was among a group of Republican lawmakers in the House who occasionally bucked the hard-line conservative agenda and worked with Democrats to pass key pieces of legislation last session.

Will Daines make an announcement?

There’s some speculation that Montana’s new Republican Congressman, Steve Daines, may make a big announcement on Saturday. Will the first-term representative in the U.S. House jump into the U.S. Senate race to replace retiring Montana senior Sen. Max Baucus?

The answer to that question may very well be ‘yes,’ but it appears unlikely that Daines will announce his decision at the Montana GOP officers convention. Sources close to Daines say we shouldn’t expect any major news from Saturday’s keynote speaker.

Attorney General intervenes in “false claims” case against former COPP Dave Gallik

Attorney General Tim Fox’s office alerted a Missoula court Thursday that the state will intervene in a lawsuit against former Commissioner of Political Practices Dave Gallik.

Gallik resigned as the state’s top political and ethics watchdog in January 2012 after the Great Falls Tribune reported allegations made by Gallik's former staff members that Gallik, an attorney, was conducting private law practice work out of his state office.

Two months later the Bozeman-based Montana Policy Institute sued Gallik under a state statue called the “False Claims Act,” a law Gallik carried when he served as a Democrat in the House of Representatives in 2005.

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, when he was still serving at attorney general, appointed Great Falls attorney Ward "Mick" Taleff to represent state in the case. Last November, Taleff argued on behalf of the state  that the case should be dismissed because the Montana Policy Institute, the plaintiff in the case, lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Missoula District Judge John Larson rejected the state’s claim and on April 12 ruled the  lawsuit against Gallik could proceed.

Thursday was the deadline for the current attorney general, Republican Tim Fox, to either intervene in the case or step aside and let MPI continue the litigation against Gallik.

John Barnes, communications director for the Attorney General’s Office, said the state will intervene. The state has 20 days to serve the complaint against Gallik.

“We feel that the claims that are being made against Gallik are serious,” Barnes said. “Given the nature of all of this – this has implications for state employees and state government in general – we feel its best handled by attorneys representing the State of Montana and best handled by the Department of Justice.”

Gallik said it is “odd” that the new attorney general decided to intervene in the case.

“That seems like a reversal of position,” Gallik said.

Gallik maintained  he did nothing wrong while serving as the commissioner of political practices.

“I told everybody that I am going to continue my law practice. I took the job because of the fact that I could continue my law practice. Nothing has changed. The job was a salaried position, I did the job, nothing has changed,” Gallik said.

A committee of top legislative leaders is meeting today to choose candidates to fill the commissioner position. Gallik’s successor, Jim Murry, ended his term last month and the position is now vacant. Senate President Jeff Essmann, House Speaker Mark Blasdel, Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, and House Minority Leader Chuck Hunter are interviewing five candidates today and will soon make recommendations to Governor Steve Bullock.

Consider the Source: ALEC scientist says ‘enriching’ the atmosphere with CO2 is good for tomatoes

Editor’s note: Beginning today I’m launching a new feature on the Lowdown called “Consider the Source.” I’ll examine an email or press release or memo and break it down so you know who is behind efforts to influence the press and the public.

In this week’s edition of “Consider the Source” we have an email bulletin from the Arizona-based, ExxonMobil-funded “thinktank,” the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,  discussing one of the many “benefits” of excessive carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Wouldn’t you know it? There’s a positive side to climate change, and it’s increased resistance to the tomato yellow leaf curl virus, a disease so devastating to the world’s tomato crop that Wikipedia doesn’t even have a page about it.

Here’s the top of the email:

The vast majority of the world’s top climate scientists and economists agree that elevations in greenhouse gas levels the atmosphere are leading to a warming planet, and thus changing climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which University of Montana climate scientist  and Nobel Laureate Dr. Steve Running is a member, not only agree that the CO2 is warming the planet, but they think it is likely that human-caused increases in CO2 emissions are contributing to the problem.

I suspect Dr. Running, the author of the “Five Stages of Climate Grief,” would categorize this email from global warming contrarian Craid Idso under Stage 3, bargaining:

When they reach this stage many people (such as self-righteous radio talk show hosts) who used to be very public deniers of global warming begin making statements that warming won"t be all that bad, it might make a place like Montana "more comfortable."

Craig Idso is a member of a prominent family of global warming skeptics. In 2009 Mother Jones dubbed the Idso claim “the von Trapp family of climate change denial.”

Idso’s father, Sherwood Idso, in 1980 published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the planet’s CO2 concentration wouldn’t have a major impact on the global temperature, and thus “we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.”

Sherwood Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology, which was headed by leading climate change skeptic Robert Balling, received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests.

In 1990, Sherwood Idso coauthored a paper with Balling funded by a coal mining company entitled "Greenhouse Cooling."

Craig Idso launched the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in 1998. He also worked as the director for environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company.

Craig Idso has a B.S. in geography from Arizona State University, an M.S. in agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University.

Not sure how that qualifies him to be a climate expert, but nonetheless he was a featured speaker at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council annual meeting for a workshop titled "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2."

The title was later changed to "Benefit Analysis of CO2."

ALEC is the industry-funded “bill mill” which pumps out pro-industry model legislation which legislators take back to their home states and try to pass into law.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch, almost 98% of ALEC's funding comes from corporations such as ExxonMobil, corporate foundations such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, or trade associations like the pharmaceutical industry's PhRMA and sources other than "legislative dues."

You can find a list of Montana legislators with ties to ALEC here.

Idso is also deeply involved with the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change. The NIPCC, could be considered the anti-IGCC.

On their website you can:

• “Discover the neglected pertinent science”
• “Learn the benefits of atmospheric CO2”
• and “Marvel at the resiliency of the biosphere

The NIPCC, which is sponsored by ALEC member and global warming denying Heartland Institute, is lead by Austrian-born American physicist Dr. Fred Singer. Singer, according to Scientific American, is best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke, and is tied to the Western Fuels Association, a “a cooperative enterprise operating on a not-for profit basis to provide coal and other services for the generation of electricity by consumer owned utilities.”

Western Fuels Association is also, you guessed it, a corporate sponsor of ALEC.

So before you go off thinking global warming is a good thing because it will make your gardening easier, you should consider the source and who is funding the research.

The world’s largest and most powerful fossil fuel energy companies want you to know their activities are making it easier for you to grow your tomatoes.

You can view the entire e-mail here.

Eleven applicants vie for Commissioner of Political Practices post

Eight men and three women have submitted applications to become the next commissioner of political practices.
Current commissioner Jim Murry’s last day was Wednesday.
Former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer appointed Murry to the post last year after the previous commissioner, Dave Gallik, resigned amid allegations that he used his office for private law practice work.
Murry did not seek confirmation to the post, and so the search for a new commissioner began this legislative session. A job posting went out on April 16.
The commissioner of political practices is responsible for investigating alleged violations of the election laws and, with the county attorneys, for enforcing election and campaign practice and finance laws.
According to the job posting the qualifications for the job include being a citizen of the United States and a resident of Montana and, on the date of appointment, a registered voter in Montana. 
A selection committee composed of the Republican House Speaker Mark Blasdel, Republican Senate President Jeff Essmann, Democratic House Minority Leader Chuck Hunter, and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, will select a pool of candidates to interview at a May 3 meeting from those who applied. The selection committee will pick at least two and not more than five finalists to forward to Gov. Steve Bullock.
Bullock must appoint a successor within 30 days of the vacancy, but he doesn’t have to appoint someone from the list of lawmakers submit to him.
The 11 candidates who have applied for the post include:

• James Ashmore, a business analyst for the state’s Information Systems Security Office at the Department of Administration in Helena.
• Jeffrey Barber, government relations director for the Nature Conservancy’s Montana chapter in Helena.
• Debra Ann Brown, of Winston, the current treasurer for the Montana Republican Party.
• Ellen Bush, of Helena, the former executive director of Court Appointed Special Advocates who most recently served as Secretary for the House Business and Labor Committee in the Legislature.
• Russell Hart, a third-year law student at the University of Montana School of Law in Missoula set to graduate in May. Hart works as a hearings officer for the Missoula Housing Authority.
• Robert Hoffman, of Butte. Hoffman served as an investigator for the commissioner of political practices from 2007-2010 under former commissioner Dennis Unsworth.
• Joel Krautter, second-year law student at the University of Montana School of Law in Missoula.
• Gary Moseman, the former managing editor of the Great Falls Tribune. Moseman retired from the Tribune last year after 30 years at the newspaper.
• Jonathan Motl, a Helena attorney with the firm Morrison, Motl and Sherwood. Motl has represented ballot issue proponents and opponents over the years and has worked on campaign finance laws.
• Daniel Ritter, a real estate agent with Trails West Real Estate in Lakeside. Ritter worked as an amendment coordinator and Sergeant at arms for the Montana Senate.
• Colleen Urquhart-Fillner, a Helena freelance writer and former policy advisor to former Republican Gov. marc Racicot.

The appointment is for the completion of the 6-year term ending December 31, 2016, and the candidate will be ineligible for reappointment. The position pays $57,699 annually.
The selection committee’s May 3 meeting in Helena is open to the public. 

Bullock to let anti-abortion bill become law to block similar measure before it hits the ballot

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock plans to let a bill become law that would require underage teenage girls to get notarized parental consent before they could get an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates are cheering the move because they say it will allow them to immediately challenge the measure in court long before an identical measure get to the ballot in 2014.

The bill, House Bill 391, by Rep. Jerry Bennett, passed the Senate on a 30-20 vote and was transmitted Bullock’s office on April 15. By law the governor has 10 days after a bill gets to his desk to sign it into law, veto it, or let it become law without his signature.  The deadline for HB391 is today.

Anti-abortion Republicans anticipated that Bullock, a pro-choice Democrat, would veto  the measure so they also passed HB521, a legislative referendum virtually identical to HB391 that would put the question to voters in November.

By allowing HB391 to become law, supporters of abortion rights say they can immediately challenge the law in court without waiting 14 months for voters to decide.

Opponents of the parental consent bill say it would put pregnant teen girls who come from dangerous or abusive homes at risk.

“Today the Governor did what is necessary so that the courts may swiftly protect the health and safety of all Montana’s families. We commend the governor for doing what is right for Montana families,” Kelsen Young, executive director for the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, in a statement.

Stacey Anderson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Montana said the group is committed to supporting parents as the primary “sexuality educators” of children, but she said no state law should force a teen to talk to parents about private matters.

“Laws like this can’t force teens to talk to their parents, and the sad truth is some teens live in dangerous homes and can’t go to their parents,” Anderson said.

Opponents of parental consent for abortions said the bill and the referendum are unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. They point to a similar law the courts struck down in 1995 because it violates the Montana Constitution’s strong privacy rights.

Niki Zupanic, Public Policy Director for the ACLU of Montana, said Bullock letting the bill become law was the right thing to do.

“We fought this bill in the Legislature and now we will fight it in the courts,” Zupanic said.  “The Governor has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of all Montana’s families, and that’s exactly what he did today.”

Last-minute Senate GOP maneuvering threatening to derail budget deal

Everyone wants to know what’s going on, but even we the press know very little about the last-minute tactic by the Senate GOP to try to force Gov. Steve Bullock back to the negotiating table.

What we know is this:

Last night legislative leaders and the Governor’s office worked late into the night to hammer out a deal that would satisfy the Republican leadership in both houses.

The headlines this morning proclaimed that Bullock and lawmakers hashed out the plan.

The House convened, finished up their third reading business, said goodbye and adjourned Sine Die.

The Senate then went into session, worked through the first board of business, then came back and voted on a motion to suspend the rules so that the Senate could accept Senate Bill 410. They needed a 2/3 majority because the measure missed transmittal deadline.

The amendments in SB410 are the deal. The measure contains an additional $13.5 million in spending on top of the $10 billion two-year budget bill. The $13.5 million includes spending for corrections, DPHHS,  and commerce.

The Senate voted 27-23 to suspend the rules, but that doesn’t get them the 2/3 majority needed. So the deal, essentially, was not accepted by the Senate.

After that happened, the Senate recessed and Republican Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich, Sen. Jason Priest, R-Red Lodge, and Sen. Jon Sesso, D-Butte (and lawmakers, staffers, political hacks, and press) went into the Senate cloak room and had an impromptu debate about the negotiations.

Sesso told Wittich and Priest that the deal was a good faith deal, approved by the House, and that by voting against adopting SB410 they were essentially breaking the deal.

Priest and Wittich told Sesso that their “interests were not represented at the table.” However, Priest was intimately involved in the writing the SB410 amendments last night. Everyone I talk to said Priest was in House Speaker Mark Basdel’s office working closely on the negotiations.

Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena, claimed that Senate President Jeff Essmann was not in the negotiations and therefore the Senate Leadership’s interests were “not represented.” But Sen. Rick Ripley, Chairman of the Senate Finance and Claims Committee disputed that, as did several other Republican lawmakers from the House and Senate who were in the Senate chambers.

Whether Essmann was involved in the negotiations or not is really not relevant, because its clear to everyone at the Capitol that Jason Priest is the Senate GOP point man on the Ledership’s negotiating team. Priest even told reporters that he’s in charge of any negotiations.

Here’s what’s happening as I write this:

The Senate still sits in recess.

Essmann is sitting in a chair at the front of the Senate. He doesn’t appear to be active in this process.

Wittich is posted outside House Speaker Blasdel’s office with a Senate leadership staffer and a GOP operative.

Blasdel, I’m told, has left the building.

Sesso in nowhere to be found.

Bullock is in a cabinet meeting, and the press is locked out.

Jim Molloy, Bullock’s senior advisor, told the press “there will be no negotiations.”

I’m told Blasdel is furious about what just went down in the Senate. My sources tell me Blasdel felt that the Senate’s actions violated the deal that was carefully crafted last night. He was especially incensed, I’m told, about the notion that Priest, Wittich and Essmann were somehow uninformed about the deal. I don’t know if that’s true, because Blasdel is nowhere to be found.

Wittich told me that Priest was involved in the negotiations, but that some changes took place after the Senate GOP leaders stepped away from the table. When SB410 came over the Senate it was not deal that was agreed to, Wittich claims.

Priest and Wittich refuse to tell the press what they want from the Governor’s office.

Bullock appears unwilling to engage the Senate GOP in negotiations, so it could come down to the Senate killing SB410 by not suspending the rules, then Bullock vetoes HB2 because the deal was broken.

If they don’t get this resolved today then the House, which already adjourned would have to come back. One House of the Legislature cannot adjourn Sine Die without the other House until after Day 88. We’re on Day 87, so if this doesn’t get resolved today, we’re back here tomorrow. And if it doesn’t get resolved then, well… then we’re back here for a special session.

Update: I just got more details on the Sine Die law:

In the Constitution it states:

Neither house shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn or recess for more than three days or to any place other than that in which the two houses are sitting.

But – Joint Rule 20-10. Consent for adjournment or recess:

As required by Article V, section 10(5), of the Montana Constitution, the consent of the other house is required for adjournment or recess for more than 3 calendar days. Consent for adjournment is obtained by having the house wishing to adjourn send a message to the other house and having the receiving house vote favorably on the request.

The receiving house shall inform the requesting house of its consent or lack of consent. Consent is not required on or after the 87th legislative day.

Since day 87 is burned – the three days runs us through day 90.

Pick up today’s Tribune for complete coverage on Montana Sen. Max Baucus’ retirement

Governor responds to House failure to bring Medicaid bill to the floor

Here are Gov. Steve Bullock’s prepared remarks regarding today’s House action sending HB623, the sole remaining Medicaid expansion bill, to the House Human Services Committee, where it is likely to die:

Statement of Governor Steve Bullock at the Press Conference on Medicaid Expansion

When you watch the news tonight or pick up a paper tomorrow, there’s a good chance that people will be talking about who won and who lost in the legislature today.  They’ll say that the Republican leadership “won” because they used a procedural trick to stop the will of the majority of legislators.  They’ll say that those who worked together to find compromise “lost.”

But no matter what anyone says, the winners aren’t a handful of folks in this building.  The real winners are the residents of New Jersey and Arizona who will now get to use Montana taxpayer dollars to improve the care of people in their states, while we get nothing.

And the losers aren’t the Democrats and Republicans who worked together and found a workable compromise. 

· The losers are the 70,000 Montanans who would have had access to quality, affordable care – but now will be forced to go without.

· The losers are the rural hospitals that are struggling to survive.

· It’s our economy that loses when we say “No” to $10 billion dollars in new economic activity.

· And it’s all of us who have health insurance who lose when we foot the bill for the uninsured who can’t afford preventative care, and instead end up in the emergency room where we foot the bill for the most expensive care possible.

I’ve traveled thousands of miles across our state talking about our health care system.  And I’ve met with leaders from hospitals, from major businesses, from Chambers of Commerce.  I’ve talked to doctors from all ends of the political spectrum.  I’ve talked to those who have insurance – who see their rates going up year after year – and I’ve talked to those who don’t have insurance – and are one illness away from medical bankruptcy.

Outside of this building, virtually everyone in our state gets it.  Creating jobs, expanding coverage and reforming the way we deliver health care is a good idea.

Ultimately, we’re all responsible to our constituents – that’s who we work for.  And these legislators who voted to send our tax dollars out of state are going to have to go home and tell their bosses that they stood in the way of lower health care costs, they stood in the way of good-paying jobs, and they stood in the way of access to affordable health care for tens of thousands of Montanans who desperately need it.

I’m disappointed that procedural tricks and threats of dark money attacks killed our legislative attempts.   To stand up to the “dark money” groups, it takes courageous statesmen and stateswomen.  There are some of them in our legislature and I thank them for their efforts.  But we need more.

Creating jobs and reforming our health care system are the right things to do and I’m going to keep fighting to do just that.  We’ll be working with Republicans and Democrats to find a way to expand coverage for more Montanans and to reform the way we deliver care.  I look forward to this happening soon.  We will get there.

Bullock signs bill decriminalizing gays and lesbians

Supporters of gay and lesbian equality packed the Capitol rotunda Thursday to celebrate Gov. Steve Bullock's signing of a measure that makes being gay legal in Montana.

The Montana Supreme Court in 1997 struck down the arcane state law that made it illegal to have gay sex, but the law remained on the books until Bullock signed Senate Bill 107.

"I'm not going to speak too long because frankly, the longer I talk the longer this unconstitutional and embarrassing law continues to stay on the books," Bullock said.

Linda Gryczan is a LGBT activist and the woman at the center of the 1995 lawsuit that lead to the Supreme Court ruling. Gryczan thanks lawmakers, lobbyists, activists and Montana citizens who have fought for more than two decades to strike the law from the books.

"Some of you interrupted bad jokes and insults, and you have done that on the floor of the House, you've done that on the floor of the Senate, you've done that in committee and you've done that in your communities," Gryczan said. "Those small actions, repeated year after year, day after day, made this change possible."

The crowd reserved their loudest cheers for Republican Reps. Duane Ankney, of Colstrip, and Steve Gibson, of East Helena. Gibson and Ankney's impassioned speeches in favor of SB107 on the House floor last week inspired the LGBT community and their supporters.

Ankney's said during his speech that his four sons "would give their last breath" to protect his daughter's right to live her life "in the way she chooses."

"To say she is any less of a person, or she is a criminal for her lifestyle, really upsets me," Ankney said in a floor speech. "This bill is an embarrassment, the law is an embarrassment on the good people of Montana. It should go away, and it should go away as quietly as it can."

The Capitol rotunda was anything but quite on Thursday as chants of "Ankney! Ankney!" filled the dome. Supporters of SB107 handed out T-shirts featuring a black and white photo of Ankney.

"I bet you've never been cheered by so many Democrats," Gryczan said.

"It's a little scary," Ankney replied.

Sen. Tom Facey, D-Missoula, SB107's sponsor, has carried similar bills in past sessions. Facey choked back tears as he thanked those who stood before him.

"I stood on the shoulders of proponents who came from across Montana to testify in committees," Facey said. "They told their stories with heart and truth and courage."

"Our predecessors stood together for equal rights. Our children cannot even grasp why equal rights would be denied," Bullock said. "For our predecessors, and our successors, now it's up to us to stand up."

Open party caucuses? Yeah, they’re pretty much a joke.

In 1995 22 news organizations – including newspapers, television and radio stations and trade and professional news associations – sued the Montana Legislature to open all Republican and Democratic House and Senate caucuses.

In 1998 District Judge Thomas Honzel ruled in favor of the news media and declared all legislative caucus meetings must be open to the public.

“Clearly, legislators gather at caucuses to discuss the public's business," Honzel wrote in his decision. "When they do so, the public has a right to observe their discussions and to be informed about what happens at those meetings."

The dirty little secret at the Capitol is that lawmakers from both parties, in both houses, have more-or-less ignored the court’s ruling…or at the spirit of the ruling. For the most part, the open caucus meetings that are announced on the House and Senate floors and held in meeting rooms during a recess in floor action are more show than substance.

The real party caucusing happens behind closed doors or at off-site locations.

Sometimes caucus leaders hold meetings at the Capitol with fewer than half the caucus members present. Without a quorum present, they can legally turn away the news media. This has happened to me in past sessions.

We in the Capitol press corps are also aware of off-site caucus meetings which place throughout the session. I’ve never been to one, but I’ve heard about them after the fact.

In past sessions I’ve seen large numbers of the House Democratic caucus walking to and from the Montana State Firemen’s Association office, which is located in house across the street from the Capitol on North Montana Ave.

I have also heard multiple tales of early-morning Senate Republican caucus meetings taking place at Jorgenson’s Restaurant and Lounge, on 11th Ave.

But as far as I know, it’s rare for an entire caucus to meet in secret, in the Capitol, during regular business hours.

At noon today I strolled onto the House floor and was surprised to see there wasn’t a single House Republican on the floor. Nor was anyone in the House leadership offices.

I  went down to the basement “bullpen,” an area in the west end of the Capitol basement where legislators hold meetings, eat lunch and otherwise relax during the session. The House Democrats lay claim to one portion of the bullpen, and the Republicans occupy the other room.

These areas are typically off-limits to the public and the press. A sign outside the door reads: “Legislators, staff and family only please!”

The door to the House GOP’s room is almost always open, so when I saw it was closed I became very curious. Without knocking I walked in and found myself in what was obviously  meeting of the full House GOP caucus, led by House Speaker Mark Blasdel.  A few members might have been absent, but I counted at least 52 GOP House members in the room. Clearly a quorum.

A House GOP staffer tried to turn me away at the door, but I showed him my press credentials and informed him that this was a party caucus meeting and thus open to the press. Montana GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood recognized me immediately and whispered something to House Majority Leader Gordon Vance, who then whispered to Blasdel, who looked in my direction and then carried on with the meeting.

My presence was immediately noted by just about everyone in the room. A few lawmakers shot me uncomfortable looks. A few appeared to be visibly peeved.

Blasdel told the caucus he expected a blast motion on Senate Bill 395, Missoula Democrat Sen. Dave Wanzenried’s Medicaid reform bill that was heard yesterday in the House Human Services Committee.

“The majority of leadership doesn’t support full expansion,” Blasdel told the caucus. “Just so you know, if that bill comes out, it is full expansion.”

Blasdel turned the floor over to Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, who talked about the key points he planned to raise on the floor in opposition to blasting SB395.

Rep. Austin Knudsen, R-Culbertson, thanked the caucus for “sticking together” and voting “no” on a SB375, Buffalo Republican Sen. Jim Peterson’s anti-dark money campaign finance bill.

Rep. Duane Ankney, R-Colstrip, was one of 15 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

“I liked the blast,” Ankney said. “Dark money is dark money.”

After the meeting, which lasted about 15 minutes, Blasdel told me House Republicans weren’t trying to hide anything by holding a caucus meeting without notice in a basement room that is off-limits to the public and the press.

“It was just trying to get people up to speed. It just drags on the floor,” Blasdel said. “There’s nothing hidden. No secret deals.”

House Minority Leader Chuck Hunter, D-Helena, admitted that Democrats, too, occasionally gather outside of the official announced caucus meetings. But Hunter denied the caucus violates the 1998 court ruling when they do get together.

“We routinely get together with members in the morning for an informal informational meeting,” Hunter said. “Members are not required to attend and we don’t have everybody there.”

Would I be turned away if I showed up?

“No. You’d likely be bored and show yourself the door,” Hunter said.

Hunter said one time this session a group of House Democrats met in numbers that did not constitute a quorum in order to discuss strategy. Hunter said when the caucus meets to take a caucus position on a bill that is done in public.

Either way, the notion that party caucus meetings are open to the press and public is pretty much a sham. Party leaders gain no advantage by disclosing their legislative strategy in the open. The real caucus whipping happens behind closed doors, often off site, and usually beyond the reach of the prying eyes and ears of the press and the public.

Need a job? State seeking new Commissioner of Political Practices

Just got a press release stating that legislative leaders are seeking applicants to serve as the next Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, the state official who oversees election and campaign finance laws.

The successful applicant will fill the remainder of outgoing commissioner Jim Murry’s term, which expires December 31, 2016. Murry, who Gov. Brian Schweitzer appointed last year, did not seek confirmation from the Republican-controlled Senate. According to statute, Murry’s appointment is effective until the end of the session.

The selection committee includes Republican House Speaker Mark Blasdel, Republican Senate President Jeff Essmann, Democratic House Minority Leader Chuck Hunter, and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso.

The committee select a pool of applicants to interview at a May 3 meeting. The selection committee will select at least two, and not more than five, finalist's names to forward to Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

Bullock must appoint a successor within 30 days of the vacancy. The governor is not required by law to appoint someone from from the list lawmakers submit to him.

The commissioner of political practices is responsible for investigating alleged violations of the election laws and, with the county attorneys, for enforcing election and campaign practice and finance laws. Qualifications for the job include being a citizen of the United States and a resident of Montana and, on the date of appointment, a registered voter in Montana. The appointment is for the completion of the 6-year term ending December 31, 2016, and the candidate will be ineligible for reappointment. The position pays $57,699 annually. The selection committee has scheduled a meeting May 3, 2013, in Helena which will be open to the public.

Who do you think should be the next COPP? Tell us in the comments.

Interested parties should submit letters of interest and application materials by 5 p.m. April 23, 2013. Candidates should also submit a resume and answer the following questions:

1. Are you familiar with restrictions Montana law imposes upon the activities of an individual holding the office of COPP? How did you acquire your familiarity?

2. What is your legal writing experience? Have you had any mediation or arbitration experience?

3. Have you ever been party to a complaint filed with the COPP?

4. What is your current or past involvement with either the campaign of a candidate or a ballot initiative?

5. Have you been affiliated with a political party or political action committee? If yes, how will this affiliation affect your ability to render impartial decisions on complaints filed against candidates, PACs, and ballot initiatives?

6. Have you or a family member been involved in the legislative process as a lobbyist?

Interested applicants should send their applications to

Candidate Selection Committee

c/o Legislative Services Division

PO Box 201706

Helena MT 59620-1706

sfox@mt.gov

Link to Commissioner of Political Practices website: http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/default.mcpx

Link to Statutes Pertaining to Commissioner of Political Practices: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/13_37.htm

Tempers flare over “dark money” disclaimer bill

Republicans in the GOP Senate caucus clashed again on the Senate floor Friday over a bill aimed at requiring disclaimers on political speech paid for with anonymous or “dark money” funds.

House Bill 254, by Rep. Rob Cook, R-Conrad, would require the following disclaimer on political mailers and websites that are paid for with anonymous contributions:

"This communication is funded by anonymous sources.  The voter should determine the veracity of  its content."

Republican Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich, a staunch opponent of the bill, called it “terrible bill” and dubbed members of the Republican caucus who were likely to vote with Democrats to pass the measure “the crossover coalition.”

Wittich has opposed measures supported by some of his fellow Republicans aimed at cracking down at dark money anonymous political spending in Montana election.

Realizing that the bill was likely to pass, Wittich said:

“I didn’t make an amendment because I know where this vote is going. The crossover coalition and the Democrats are going to pass this bill, and everybody is going to be happy, and the headlines will be ‘we took a shot at dark money didn’t we do great,’” Wittich said.

Wittich said the content and “truthfulness”  of political messages is what is important.

“We’ve lost sight of all of that in all these campaign finance reform bills,” Wittich said. “We hear all about dark money, the spin of dark money. Well, it is about owning your vote. It’s about the exposure of your voting record and its the one thing people back home can find out about you.”

Wittich said voters can’t find out about “back room deals,” “vote trading,” “all the lobbyist transactions” and “spending other people’s money.”

Those last points touched a nerve with some of Wittich’s fellow Republicans, who took the unusual step of challenging their majority leader on the floor of the Senate.

Sen. Alan Olson, R-Roundup, is the sponsor of the two proposed legislative referendums on voting that last week sent the Senate into a tail spin as Democrats erupted on the floor in an attempt block their passage.

A week later Olson was at the center of another floor fight, but this time the jabs were traded within the GOP caucus.

Here’s the transcript of what happened after Wittich’s floor speech in opposition to HB254.

Sen. Alan Olson: Mr. Chairman, Sen. Wittich, could you identify the crossover coalition for me?

Chairman Ed Walker: To the bill please.

Sen. Art Wittich: Mr. Chairman, would you like a list, Sen. Olson?

Chairman: Sen. Olson.

Olson: Mr. Chairman, it was in the good senator’s discussion on the bill. I guess I’d like to know who the crossover coalition is, Mr. Chairman. Being as it was brought up by the good Senator from Bozeman.

Walker: I just feel that’s out of order at this point. Um, Sen. Wittich.

Wittich: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the specific names right now, but we see it on the board, often.

Walker: Sen. Olson.

Olson: Mr. Chairman. Follow up?

Walker: Will Sen. Wittich yield?

Wittich: Yes.

Olson: Mr. Chairman, Sen. Wittich, you mention members of this body trading votes. Could you identify those individuals?

Wittich: Mr. Chairman, Sen. Olson, I’m not sure that would be a very comfortable thing for you if I started disclosing that. We all know that it happens.

Walker: Senators can we just keep the decorum in the body, please? Sen. Cliff Larsen, would like to close on your motion?

Larsen: Mr. Chairman, I think the floor is still open. I believe other people want to speak. I’d feel comfortable if they were recognized…

Walker: Sen. Peterson, for what purpose do you rise?

Sen. Jim Peterson: “Mr. Chairman I was going to rise on a point of personal privilege, but I’ll do that later.”

Walker: “Sen. Jones, for what purpose do you rise?

Sen. Llew Jones: “Mr. Chairman I do have a question for Sen. Wittich.

Walker: Will Sen. Wittich yield?

Wittich: Sure.

Jones: Mr Chairman, Sen. Wittich, you suggested that a crossover coalition was voting in some block. Are you suggesting that we should vote…should put something other than our conscience or our caucus ahead of our vote?

Walker: Sen. Wittich?

Wittich: Mr. Chairman, Sen. Jones, I’m not sure I understand the question.

Jones: You seem to be suggesting, somehow, that our vote was specifically owed to a group of people for some reason. That we couldn’t vote our conscience or we couldn’t represent our constituents, that somehow…

Walker: Can we keep it on the bill please..the bill… we’re talking about votes throughout this session. May we please keep it on the bill, which is HB254.

Jones: I withdraw my question.

Walker: Sen. Essmann.

President Jeff Essmann: Mr. Chairman, members of the body I think we should confine our discussion on the floor to the bill that’s before us and when we stray I would remind any member of this body they have the right to stand up and call the chair to bring any member that strays off the topic of the bill to order. That should be the procedure that we follow here if we stray.

Someone started a campaign website for Sen. Llew Jones…it wasn’t Llew Jones

If you visit llewjonesformontana.com on the Internet you won’t find a whole lot there yet.

The landing page features a pastoral scene of a freshly cut hayfield, complete with round bales, grain bins in the background and clouds billowing over distant mountain tops.

“Thank you for visiting Lew Jones for Montana” the  banner on the page proclaims.

“Please check in soon for more updates.”

What updates might one expect to find on what is presumably a campaign website for Conrad Republican Sen. llew Jones?

Jones doesn’t know, but he’s pretty sure it won’t be good. 

“I can only postulate, but it would seem that with the timing, mid-session, and the anonymous nature, that is is most likely of ill-intent,” Jones said. “If I were to hazard a guess, I believe it is the beginning of dark money's intent to message against me. After all, the owner, at this point is hidden.”

According to a domain registration search, llewjonesformontana.com was registered on March 28 using at GoDaddy.com. The owner of the domain has opted to keep their identity secret.

March 28 is the a day after the Senate passed Senate Bill 375, the bi-partisan anti-dark money campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, and back by Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

A handful of Republicans joined nearly all Senate Democrats in voting to bring SB375 out of committee, where it had stalled, and onto the floor for a debate. During the floor debate Jones was one of the most outspoken critics of dark money spending in political campaigns.

Jones described dark money this way on the Senate floor:

“The most despicable person in westerns is the bushwhacker, the person who sits in the bushes and shoots someone in the back. And that is dark money,” said state Sen. Llew Jones, R-Conrad. “Dark money is the most destructive thing happening to politics today.”

Jones, who was alerted to the existence of the website by an anonymous emails, said he suspects the website is a message designed to “intimidate” him into “stand down” on his crusade against dark money.

“I am not a popular guy with those that prefer to operate from the dark,” Jones said. “It seems that those who operate independently, and who make their votes based upon their conscience and then their constituents are not obedient enough.  Darkness seems particularly opposed to any bipartisan activity.”

Jones said if the website was aimed at intimidating him, it will actually have the opposite effect.

“I plan to work even harder to shine light on dark money,” Jones said.

Jones said he plans to blast House Bill 254, by Rep. Rob Cook, R-Conrad, onto the Senate floor. That blast motion could come today.

Cook’s bill would require election materials, including anonymous websites and mailings, to contain the following  disclaimer if the material was paid for by anonymous political action committee dollars:

“This communication is funded by anonymous sources. The voter should determine the veracity of its content.”

Cook’s bill was tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jones said bills like SB375 and HB254 “help turn the lights” on anonymous campaign activity.

“The voter needs to be informed when the sources of materials are dark,” Jones said. “I strongly support the right of free speech, but those that wish to speak freely should step into the light and identify themselves when doing so.”

A search of the IP address used to register  llewjonesformontana.com found the same IP address was used to register at least 50 other domain names, including montanagrwothfoundation.org.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Sen. Jason Priest, R-Red Lodge, is the treasurer for the Montana Growth Foundation. Priest runs a political issue advocacy group called Montana Growth Network, which this session has sent out mailers critical of Medicaid expansion.

Priest was a vocal opponent of SB375 and voted against it in the Senate.

Priest said he does not own the domain for montanagrowthfoundation.org and has done no work on the website.

Priest said he had no knowledge of llewjonesformontana.com. Priest said he first learned of llewjonesformontana.com when questioned by the Lowdown.

“The first thing I did was see how I registered the (Montana Growth) Foundation,” Priest said. “When I looked at my accounts I saw that I didn’t register the domain for the foundation.”

Priest said that doesn’t mean someone associated with the Montana Growth Network or the Montana Growth Foundation didn’t register the domain and start the website.

Priest said he was looking into the matter.