ProPublica: In Montana, Dark Money helped Democrats hold a key Senate seat

Sen. Jon Tester, right, and Rep. Denny Rehberg greet each other during their debate on Monday, Oct. 8, 2012 in Billings, Mont. (AP Photo/Billings Gazette, Casey Page)

Editor’s note: The following article, about the role dark money played in Montana’s 2012 U.S. Senate, race is published in its entirety by permission of ProPublica.

by Kim Barker ProPublica

In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic.

It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian Dan Cox, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."

Where did the group's money come from? Nobody knows.

The pro-Cox ads were part of a national pattern in which groups that did not disclose their donors, including social welfare nonprofits and trade associations, played a larger role than ever before in trying to sway U.S. elections. Throughout the 2012 election, ProPublica has focused on the growing importance of this so-called dark money in national and local races.

Such spending played a greater role in the Montana Senate race than almost any other. With control of the U.S. Senate potentially at stake, candidates, parties and independent groups spent more than $51 million on this contest, all to win over fewer than 500,000 voters. That's twice as much as was spent when Tester was elected in 2006.

Almost one quarter of that was dark money, donated secretly to nonprofits.

"It just seems so out of place here," said Democrat Brian Schweitzer, the former governor of Montana who left office Monday. "About one hundred dollars spent for every person who cast a vote. Pretty spectacular, huh? And most of it, we don't have any idea where it came from. Day after the election, they closed up shop and disappeared into the dark."

Political insiders say the Montana Senate race provided a particularly telling glimpse at how campaigns are run in the no-holds-barred climate created by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, giving a real-world counterpoint to the court's assertion that voters could learn all they needed to know about campaign funding from disclosure.

In many ways, Montana was a microcosm of how outside spending worked nationally, but it also points to the future. Candidates will be forced to start raising money earlier to compete in an arms race with outside groups. Voters will be bombarded with TV ads, mailers and phone calls. And then on Election Day, they will be largely left in the dark, unable to determine who's behind which message.

All told, 64 outside groups poured $21 million into the Montana Senate election, almost as much as the candidates. Party committees spent another $8.9 million on the race.

The groups started spending money a year before either candidate put up a TV ad, defining the issues and marginalizing the role of political parties. In a state where ads were cheap, they took to the airwaves. More TV commercials ran in the Montana race between June and the election than in any other Senate contest nationwide.

The Montana Senate race also shows how liberal groups have learned to play the outside money game u2014 despite griping by Democratic officials about the influence of such organizations.

Liberal outside groups spent $10.2 million on the race, almost as much as conservatives. Conservatives spent almost twice as much from anonymous donors, but the $4.2 million in dark money that liberal groups pumped into Montana significantly outstripped the left's spending in many other races nationwide.

As in other key states, conservative groups devoted the bulk of their money in Montana to TV and radio ads. But sometimes the ads came across as generic and missed their mark.

Liberal groups set up field offices, knocked on doors, featured "Montana" in their names or put horses in their TV ads. Many of them, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were tied to a consultancy firm where a good friend of Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's campaign manager, is a partner.

The end result? Tester beat Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg by a narrow margin. And the libertarian Cox, who had so little money he didn't even have to report to federal election authorities, picked up more votes than any other libertarian in a competitive race on the Montana ballot.

Montana Republicans blamed Montana Hunters and Anglers,  made up of a super PAC and a sister dark money nonprofit, for tipping the race. Even though super PACs have to report their donors, the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC functioned almost like a dark money group. Records show its major donors included an environmentalist group that didn't report its donors and two super PACs that in turn raised the bulk of their money from the environmentalist group, other dark money groups and unions.

"Part of what's frustrating to me is I look at Montana Hunters and Anglers and say, 'That is not fair,'" said Bowen Greenwood, executive director for the Montana Republican Party. "I am a hunter. I know plenty of hunters. And Montana hunters don't have their positions. It would be fairer if it was called Montana Environmental Activists. That would change the effect of their ads."

Cox and Tester deny the group's efforts swung the race. No one from Montana Hunters and Anglers returned calls for comment.

Tester, who's argued that all groups spending on elections should disclose their donors and also pushed against super PACs, said he wasn't familiar with any of the outside groups running ads. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate with outside spending groups, which are supposed to be independent.

Despite his ambivalence, he said he was glad the outside groups jumped in.

"If we wouldn't have had folks come in on our side, it would have been much tougher to keep a message out there," Tester said. "We had no control over what they were saying. But by the same token, I think probably in the end if you look at it, they were helpful."

* * *

Montana has long prided itself on a refusal to be pigeonholed. It's the kind of place that votes Republican for president but elects Democrats to state office. Politicians wear bolo ties, tout their Montana credentials and use words like "hell" and "crap." People introduce themselves by saying what generation Montanan they are.

Consistently, the state fights against any mandate that smacks of Washington meddling, from the federal speed limit to the Citizens United ruling in early 2010, which opened the door to corporations and unions spending unlimited money on independent ads, echoing an earlier court ruling that equated money with free speech.

Before that, Montana had one of the country's toughest campaign finance laws, dating back 100 years, to the time of the copper kings. After one of those kings bribed state lawmakers to back him as senator, the state banned corporate political spending.

Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court insisted that Montana's legacy of corruption justified keeping the ban. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court squashed that move, saying the Citizens United decision applied to every state in the nation.

By then, dark money groups were already weighing in on Montana's Senate race.

The TV ads started in March 2011, the month after Rehberg announced. The Environmental Defense Action Fund attacked Rehberg for his stance on mercury emissions. The Electronic Payments Coalition praised Tester for his push to delay implementing new debit-card swipe fees.

"The thing that surprised me a little bit was how early they got involved," said David Parker, an associate professor of political science at Montana State University who tracked all 160 TV commercials as part of a book he is writing on the race. "And I think that was critical, because very early on, they were able to establish the contours of this race. The candidates were just busy putting their organizations together and raising money."

Most of the money spent in 2011 on TV ads came from groups that didn't have to report their donors. They also didn't have to report their ads to the Federal Election Commission, because they didn't specifically tell voters to vote for or against a candidate. Instead of saying "Vote for Rehberg," they said things like "Call Jon Tester. Tell him to stop supporting President Barack Obama." Ads like that only have to be reported to the FEC if they air during the two months before an election.

The only way to compile data on such ad spending is by visiting TV stations, which Parker did. ProPublica helped him collect information on the last round of ads.

Parker's data shows that several heavyweight conservative groups entered the fray in mid-2011 to try to cast Tester, whom they saw as vulnerable, as a big spender.

Crossroads GPS, the dark money group launched by GOP strategist Karl Rove, ran two ads in July 2011 similar to those attacking Democrats in other states for supporting excessive spending.

Also that month, a conservative group called Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee ran a sarcastic ad about a new miracle drug called "Spenditol," Washington's answer to America's problems. "Call Sen. Jon Tester," the ad said. "Tell him, stop spending it all." Similar ads ran against Democratic senators up for election in tight races in Florida, Nebraska and Ohio.

Several ads run by conservative groups backfired, messing up in ways that irked Montanans.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee u2014 a party committee that reports its donors u2014 ran an ad that appeared to show Tester with all five digits on his left hand. (Tester is well known for having lost three fingers in a childhood accident involving a meat grinder.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce misspelled Tester's first name. A Montana cable operator yanked a Crossroads ad for claims the operator deemed false.

"The first one that burned me really bad was from the U.S. Chamber," said Verner Bertelsen, a former Republican state legislator and Montana secretary of state. "I thought u2014 you buggers! We don't need you to come in here and tell us who to vote for."

Starting in July 2011, three new liberal dark money groups ran ads. Patriot Majority USA criticized Republicans for allegedly planning to cut Medicare and help to seniors. The Partnership to Protect Medicare praised Tester for opposing Medicare cuts.

And in October, weeks after forming, the dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, launched its first TV ad, starring Land Tawney, the group's gap-toothed and camouflage-sporting president, who also served on the Sportsmen's Advisory Panel for Tester. At the time, the super PAC side of the group was basically dormant.

The new Hunters ad accused Rehberg of pushing a bill u2014 House bill 1505 u2014 that supposedly would give Washington politicians control of access to public lands in Montana. Rehberg, one of 60 cosponsors, argued the legislation was necessary to help the Department of Homeland Security protect the state from illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists.

"Nobody in Montana was talking about that bill," Greenwood said. "I've only heard it talked about in campaign ads. And it played a role throughout the election."

* * *

The gusher of outside money into Montana's Senate race was part of a larger pattern. Nationally, in addition to the $5.1 billion spent by candidates and parties, almost 700 outside spending groups dumped more than $1 billion into federal elections in the 2012 cycle, FEC filings show.

Of that, about $322 million was dark money, most of it from 153 social welfare nonprofits, groups that could spend money on politics as long as social welfare u2014 not politics u2014 was their primary purpose.

Relating those numbers to previous elections is a largely pointless exercise, akin to comparing statistics from baseball and lacrosse. The Citizens United ruling changed the game, opening the door to unlimited corporate donations to super PACs and to a new breed of more politically active nonprofits.

"Instead of being in a boxing match in a ring, you're in a dark alley being hit by four or five people, and you don't know who they are," said Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats run for state offices.

Some of the players in the 2012 cycle were longtime activist organizations such as the liberal Sierra Club and the conservative National Right to Life Committee, with clear social welfare missions and only a limited amount of political spending. Other dark money groups were juggernauts like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, founded years ago by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which crank up their fundraising during election years and devote more money to election ads than other nonprofits.

Finding out about some of the less prominent nonprofits was no easy feat. Many were formed out of post-office boxes or law firms. On their applications to the Internal Revenue Service, they minimized or even denied any political activity.

Documents for pop-up nonprofits like the conservative America Is Not Stupid and A Better America Now, both of which formed in 2011, led back to a Florida law firm that offered no explanations. The Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, a liberal pop-up group that spent millions on elections in 2010, closed down in 2011. In its place came a new group: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund, which earlier this year bought almost $900,000 in ads attacking Rehberg and the Republican Senate candidate in New Mexico.

Groups picked names that seemed designed to confuse: Patriot Majority USA is liberal. Patriotic Veterans is conservative. Common Sense Issues backed conservatives. Common Sense Movement backed a Democrat.

As in the 2010 midterms, the dark money spent in 2012 had a partisan tilt. Conservative groups accounted for about 84 percent of the spending reported to the FEC u2014 mainly through Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Liberal groups spent 12 percent of the dark money. Nonpartisan groups made up the rest.

Despite shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars, conservatives lost big. Only about 14 percent of conservative dark money went to support winners.

Still, campaign-finance reformers say it's a mistake to minimize the influence of this money.

"What these donors were buying was access and influence, not only to the candidates but to the party machine," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. "And they will get that access. On the Republican side, you have people lining up to kiss the ring of (billionaire donor) Sheldon Adelson. And on the Democratic side, you have even people critical of these groups meeting with the funders of these groups. This money is not going away."

Even though liberal groups spent far less than conservative ones, they had a higher success rate. About 70 percent backed winning candidates.

Some Democrats have shown distaste for the dark-money arts, pushing for more transparency. But liberal strategists are preparing to ramp up their efforts before the next election, unless the IRS, Congress or the courts change the rules.

"We probably have a lot less comfort with some of the existing rules that allow for the Koch brothers to write unlimited checks to these groups," said Navin Nayak, the senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal social welfare nonprofit for more than 40 years. "But as long as these are the rules, we're certainly going do our best to make sure we're competitive and that our candidates have a shot at winning. We're certainly not going to cede the playing field to the Koch brothers."

* * *

By the time Tester and Rehberg started buying TV ads, outside groups had been defining the race for a year.

Rehberg, 57, a six-term congressman and rancher often pictured wearing a cowboy hat and a plaid shirt, was portrayed as voting five times to increase his pay and charging an SUV to taxpayers. Tester, 56, a farmer with a flat top, was dinged for voting with Obama 95 percent of the time.

Tester's campaign went up with ads in March, mainly to counter the outside messages.

"The original plans were going up 60 or 90 days later than that," Tester said. "But it was important...We had to remind people of who I am."

His early ads highlighted his Montana roots, depicting him riding a combine on his farm and packing up Montana beef to carry back to Washington.

Rehberg had less money, so his earliest TV ads, which mainly attacked Tester, went up in May.

Neither Rehberg nor anyone from his media staff responded to requests for an interview on his views on campaign finance. In the past, he has said he supports the Citizens United ruling.

Meanwhile, conservative groups bought TV ads that hit at Tester but stopped just short of telling people how to vote. For instance, the conservative 60 Plus Association spent almost $500,000 buying TV ads featuring crooner Pat Boone criticizing Tester over the health care law. None of that was reported to the FEC.

Over the summer, the Concerned Women for America's legislative committee, Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all weighed in. The TV spots were overwhelmingly negative, and many of them were cookie-cutter ads, similar to those that ran in other states against Democrats.

Liberal groups bought TV ads, too, but that was only part of their game plan. They spent their dark money on retail politics, hitting the streets and knocking on doors.

In January, the League of Conservation Voters set up two offices in Montana u2014 one in Missoula and one in Billings. It canvassed voters and hired a full-time organizer, reaching out to 28,000 sporadic voters to urge them to vote early by mail.

Lindsay Love, the spokeswoman at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, another nonprofit that doesn't report its donors for election spending, said the group targeted 41,000 female voters. More than 1,500 people ended up knocking on 28,500 doors and making 162,000 phone calls, she said. The group sent out about 470,000 pieces of mail.

"It's hard to unpack this," Parker said. "But it's fascinating to look at groups like the League, unions and Planned Parenthood. By and large, they did phones, canvassing, mail, very little TV. One of the best ways to get out the vote is personalized contact."

Many liberal groups active in Montana, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were connected through Hilltop Public Solutions, a Beltway consulting firm.

Barrett Kaiser, a former aide to Montana's other Democratic senator, Max Baucus, is a partner at Hilltop and runs its office in Billings. The Hilltop website notes that Kaiser helped with Tester's upset Senate win in 2006. Kaiser is also a good friend of Messina, the manager of Obama's 2012 campaign, who also once worked for Baucus.

Kaiser was on the board of the Montana Hunters and Anglers dark money group. Another Hilltop employee in Billings served as the treasurer for the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC.

Hilltop partners in Washington also helped run two other dark money groups that spent money on the Montana race: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund and the Partnership to Protect Medicare.

The League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana paid management fees to Hilltop.

No one from Hilltop returned calls, but Nayak and Love said they worked with Hilltop independently of other groups.

Outside groups are allowed to coordinate with each other or use the same consultants u2014 they're just not allowed to coordinate with a candidate. By working together, groups can disguise who is actually behind an ad.

In early July, for instance, the League of Conservation Voters gave $410,000 to the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC u2014 almost all the money the group raised as of that date.

When the super PAC spent the money on TV ads against Rehberg later that month, the spots were paid for by what appeared to be an organization of Montana hunters, not some Washington-based conservationist group. Nayak said that was not a coincidence.

"We figured having a local brand like that and partnering with them on local issues made more sense than having a D.C. brand," he said.

Nayak said the League did not donate money for the later ads pushing Cox, the libertarian.

It's not clear where that money came from. The dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers paid for the radio ads. The super PAC bought the TV ads and had to disclose its donors, but FEC filings show its money came mainly from two other super PACs, which in turn reported getting most of their money from unions and dark money groups, including the League.

* * *

As the Montana Senate race approached its climax, as many as five fliers landed in voters' mailboxes daily. Robocalls, supposedly illegal in Montana, interrupted meals. Strangers knocked on doors, promising free pizza for voting. People turned off their TVs, dumped their mail without looking at it and stopped answering the phone.

"My ex and I moved in together, because he had cancer and I took care of him," said Louise McMillin, 51, who lives in the university district in Missoula. "He kept getting polling calls as he was dying. After he died, I kept saying, 'He's dead, could you take his name off the list?' And they said, 'Sure, sure.' And they kept calling."

The race stayed tight. Demand for TV ad slots spiked, so the TV stations started raising their prices. The law required them to charge candidates their lowest rate. But outside groups? They could be hit up for whatever the market would bear.

Rehberg's campaign paid $400 to run a 30-second ad during the show Blue Bloods on Oct. 19 on the CBS affiliate in Great Falls. A week later, Crossroads GPS paid $2,000 for a slot during the same show.

Anything was fair game for the ads. One, from the super PAC Now Or Never, made fun of Tester's buzz cut, then showed his hair growing down to his shoulders, a bizarre sequence apparently designed to signal his ties to Obama. Another ad, from the dark money group America Is Not Stupid, featured a baby with a gravelly voice saying he didn't know what smelled worse, his diaper or Tester.

"By the middle of October, people were just so tuned out and quite frankly disgusted by all these third-party ads," said Ted Dick, the executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "We found that face-to-face conversations toward the end were most persuasive and effective. That's the lesson we're taking forward."

There are other lessons. Tester said the Montana race made clear that candidates will have to raise money sooner, and go up with TV ads faster. Although uncomfortable with outside money, Tester also said it's just the way things are now, even on the liberal side.

"I mean, look, they did it," he said. "And with as many ads that were against me, I was glad they did. But it needs to be transparent. I mean, everybody's needs to be transparent... It's important to know who's spending money on who so you know why they're doing it. And the way the system is set up right now, there is no transparency. Very little."

Campaign finance reformers agree that knowing who is behind a message helps people assess it.

One example: Two postcards sent to thousands of Montanans just before the election didn't include the required notice saying who paid for them. One said Rehberg had wasted "hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on pork barrel projects," and urged people to vote for Cox, "a champion for fiscal responsibility." The other called Rehberg "the king of pork" and told people to vote for Cox.

Cox said he didn't send them. The bulk-mail permit on the postcards came back to a Las Vegas company called PDQ Printing, according to the U.S. Postal Service. In an online manual, PDQ describes itself as "Nevada's preeminent Union printer." No one there returned phone calls.

Greenwood, the head of the Montana Republican Party, filed a complaint with the FEC over the mailers. The complaint blames liberal groups and says they "engaged in a duplicitous strategy of supporting the libertarian candidate, Dan Cox, in a desperate attempt" to siphon votes from Rehberg.

More than likely, that complaint won't be resolved for years.

Greenwood said he didn't think disclosure was a cure-all. But he also said the current system marginalized political parties.

"Whether it's Montana Hunters and Anglers or (the conservative super PAC) American Crossroads, they are not responsive to the grassroots," Greenwood said. "These are the professionals and the money men who are not responsive at all to people. The system as it is now does not reflect what people want."

Besides picking between Tester and Rehberg, Montanans got a chance in this election to say how they want the system to work. On the ballot was an initiative u2014 largely symbolic in light of recent court decisions u2014 that declared that corporations are not human beings and banned corporate money in politics.

Gov. Schweitzer, a Democrat, and Bertelsen, the former Republican secretary of state, campaigned for the initiative. In a shocker for backers, almost 75 percent of voters supported it.

"I realized it absolutely didn't have any legal basis to do anything dramatic," said Bertelsen, who is 94. "But it's a case of saying, 'We don't like it.' I guess we could just sit down and not say a word. But the Supreme Court u2014 I think they made a mistake. Money isn't speech, anyhow. It's just money."

Correction (12/27): This story originally said that the libertarian candidate Dan Cox picked up more votes than any other libertarian on the Montana ballot. He actually picked up more votes than any other libertarian in a competitive race on the Montana ballot.

Greatfallstribune.com is the place to be on Election Night

To say it's been a long campaign season is an understatement, with campaign spending at record rates and neck-and-neck races from the national to local level.

The Great Falls Tribune is your source for live campaign results Tuesday, at www.gftribune.com and on mobile devices and tablets with the Great Falls Tribune app.

Watch our interactive graphics, with results as soon as the polls on the East Coast close, which is 6 p.m. Mountain Standard Time.

Tribune Capital Bureau Chief John S. Adams will host a live, online chat from 7 to 8 p.m., the hour before Montana's polls close, answering election night questions from you, discussing campaigns, and delivering the latest news about this year's election.

When those shut down at 8 p.m., we will have results posted immediately as they become available.

In the presidential race, we'll keep you abreast of the latest vote tallies, electoral votes, congressional balance in both the U.S. Senate and House, as well as Montana's race for the governor's and other Land Board seats, lone Congressional seat and, of course, the race between Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg for the Senate.

The majority for both houses in Montana's 2013 Legislature is potentially up for grabs, and there are significant races for local seats this year, too.

Great Falls Tribune reporters will be across the state, from Helena to Billings, providing up-to-the-minute results, candidates' and party officials' reactions and interviews.

You can find results and reactions from across the state on the live Twitter feed at www.gftribune.com. Follow us @GFTribune.

Wednesday's print edition will include local election results from across northcentral Montana, from the North Dakota border to Glacier County, as well as those from statewide and national race.

But as recent elections have proved, sometimes final results aren't decided until after the sun rises Wednesday. Continue to watch www.gftribune.com throughout the day for late results, as well as analysis of what those results could mean both nationally and at the state level.

[Reprinted from the 11/4/12 Great Falls Tribune Viewpoints ]

Judge may release investigation report in Flathead Lake boat crash before Nov. 6 election

Flathead County District Judge John McKeon, of Malta, will consider whether to release the pre-sentence investigation report that was part of the criminal case against former Montana State Sen. Greg Barkus, R-Kalispell.

McKeon ordered all sides in the case to respond by Oct. 23 to a non-profit watchdog group’s  request that the court release the pre-sentence investigation report related to the 2009 boat crash which left Barkus, Congressman Denny Rehberg and three others seriously injured. The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, wants the documents released before the Nov. 6 election in which Rehberg, a Republican, is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester for the U.S. Senate.

According to CREW’s Oct. 10 press release:

“CREW requested the PSI to shed light on the true facts surrounding the crash, including the extent to which those facts differ from the version offered by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), a passenger on the boat who denied Sen. Barkus was impaired in any way.”

Rehberg’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on CREW’s request or McKeon’s order.

UPDATE: Rehberg’s campaign manager, Erik Iverson, said in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon that his boss has no control over whether the report is released or not because he is not a party to the case in question.

“Denny was a witness and has no rights or privileges different than any other witness,” Iverson said. “That said, it doesn't matter to Denny what the judge decides. He has no problem with the documents being released at all. He has not seen them or read them, but either way Denny is fine with whatever the judge decides to do."

Barkus, who was the House majority whip at the time, was behind the wheel of the boat that on Aug. 27, 2009 slammed into the rocks on the shore of Flathead Lake near Wayfarers State Park. Court records revealed that Barkus’ blood alcohol content was .16, twice the legal limit of .08, nearly two hours after the crash. Rehberg, two of his staff members and Barkus’ wife were passengers on the boat, and all were seriously injured in the crash. Rehberg denied being impaired himself and said he “saw no signs of impairment” in Barkus.

(You can download the complete audio from Rehberg’s hour-long press conference two weeks after the crash here).

Barkus was charged with criminal endangerment and negligent vehicular assault. McKeon rejected prosecutors’ original plea agreement with Barkus, which called for a three-year deferred sentence, a $4,000 restitution payment and unsupervised probation. McKeon instead imposed a $29,000 fine and a four-year deferred prison sentence.

On Oct. 1 CREW asked McKeon to release the pre-sentence investigation report that the court used to determine Barkus’ sentence. According to court records, the report includes:

1. photographs of the crash;
2. witness statements;
3. the investigating officers’ reports;
4. toxicology reports;
5. the report of the accident reconstruction expert;
6. written or transcribed statements of the the boat’s occupants;
7. a history of Barkus’ 2004 conviction on traffic offenses, including the circumstances surrounding the reckless driving conviction in which he was originally charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Under state law, McKeon cannot disseminate the pre-sentence investigation report to CREW without first finding “that the demands of individual privacy do not clearly exceed the merits of the public disclosure.”

CREW chief legal counsel Anne L. Weismann argued that the Barkus case involved people in positions of public trust. Barkus was a sitting state senator at the time of the crash and Rehberg, a sitting U.S. Congressman now and at the time of the crash, is running for the U.S. Senate. CREW argued there is “significant public interest in disclosure” to understand the circumstances of the crash and how those circumstances relate to the integrity and judgment of the public officials involved in the crash.

Barkus’ case was ongoing when Rehberg sought reelection to the House in 2010. The case was scheduled to go to trial more than three weeks after the election but the settlement was eventually reached and finalized in January 2011, after Rehberg started his sixth term in Congress.

Top Santorum funder expects to back Rehberg

According article in the latest issue of The New Republic (subscription required) the “eccentric Republican billionaire” Foster Friess will, “for sure,” spend some money in Montana this election cycle.

Friess, now of Jackson, Wyo., made a fortune managing a multi-billion-dollar mutual fund. Now retired, Friess is a prominent financier of conservative causes and he’s GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum’s biggest financial backer. According to the The New Republic Friess has pumped $331,000 of the $730,000 raised by Santorum’s Super PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund and is responsible for a third of the $150,000 raised by Leaders for Families, another Santorum Super PAC.

According to The New Republic’s Molly Redden :

Rich eccentrics are nothing new in politics. But, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and the unlimited Super PAC donations it allows, these eccentrics can now sustain campaigns that would have otherwise dropped out of view long ago. Newt Gingrich has Las Vegas magnate Sheldon Adelson; Ron Paul has PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel; Santorum has Friess. And, no matter what ultimately happens in the GOP presidential primaries, Friess is already beginning to contemplate which races he might be able to influence next.

One of those races is likely to be Montana’s very own U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Jon Tester and Republican challenger U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg.

Redden reports:

…Friess is hoping to haven an even bigger impact on several crucial races for the fall. He told me he plans "for sure" to give to eight or ten key Senate races. His favored candidates include Denny Rehberg, who is currently locked in a virtual tie with Montana's vulnerable Democratic senator, Jon Tester; Josh Mandel, who is challenging liberal Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown; and Dan Liljenuist, a far-right primary challenger to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. In all three races, a large cash infusion could make a big difference.

If Foster Friess’ name sounds familiar, it’s probably because of the headlines he generated last week when he weighed into the debate over contraception in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

Tester bests Rehberg in 2nd quarter fundraising

Incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester outraised Republican challenger Rep. Denny Rehberg in second quarter of 2011 fundraising.

In reports filed today with the Federal Elections Commission, Tester reported contributions totaling $1,255,948.24 between April 1 and June 30. Rehberg raised $914,656.63 during the same period.

Tester's campaign, Montanans for Tester, has $2,335,139.80 in cash on hand. Rehberg's campaign, Montanan's for Rehberg, reported having $1,500,744.90 in the bank.

Montana's U.S. Senate race is shaping up to be one of the marquee Senate races of the 2012 election, and the early fundraising numbers highlight that, said veteran political observer Jennifer Duffy, senior editor for The Cook Political Report.

"Republicans need four seats to win the majority in the Senate, and this is absolutely one of them," Duffy said. "Both parties are going to fight in Montana like their majorities depend on it."

Both campaign in press releases traded barbs over their opponents' ties to "Wall Street" and "big oil."

Rehberg’s top sheets here

Tester’s top sheets here

Tester campaign manager, Preston Elliott, said Tester's fundraising numbers show that people are "throwing their support behind this grassroots campaign because they know how effectively Jon represents Montana values in the U.S. Senate — as a Montana farmer who still comes home every weekend."

Rehberg's campaign countered that Tester has "relied heavily on Wall Street banking executives" and "Hollywood elites" to fund his campaign while stating that the majority of Rehberg's individual donors are Montanans.

“Denny’s Made in Montana campaign continues to surge all across Big Sky Country,” said Rehberg campaign manager Erik Iverson. "We’ll probably never out-fundraise Wall Street Jon and his Big Bank money but we don’t need to because Montanans know Denny is right on the issues and always puts Montana first.”

Elliott accused Rehberg's campaign of resulting to "Washington's dirty politics" by getting "big oil and Wall Street special interests" to fund early TV attacks against Tester.

"We about building a powerful grassroots campaign in order to make sure that Montanans know the truth about Jon and his good work," Elliott said.

Tester reported taking-in $946,922.61 in individual contributions and $307,069.51 from political action committees, or PACs. Rehberg received $720,769.13 from individual donors and took-in $192,987.50 in PAC monies. Rehberg also received $700 from political party committees.

Duffy said the second quarter numbers show just how important Montana's U.S. Senate seat is to both parties.

"I think both candidates had really good quarters," Duffy said. "I know that Democrats will make a quite a lot of Tester's cash-on-hand advantage, but the reality is pretty simple: in a race like this that is a huge priority for both parties, there's going to be no money difference. Neither of them are going to have to worry about money."

Rehberg: “I am land rich and cash poor”

The Montana Democratic Party posted a video on YouTube clip this morning from an event in Missoula in which Rehberg tells an attendee that he is “land rich and cash poor.”

An unidentified man asks Rehberg a question about his priorities--and presumably took a shot at Montana’s Republican Congressman for being rich because Rehberg references “gratuitous shots like ‘the rich like myself.’”

Here’s the clip, which I’ll discuss further below.

The tape is only clip so we don’t know what the full context of the man’s question was, but Rehberg was obviously irritated at being labeled “rich.” Democrats have repeatedly played the “rich” card and no-doubt will continue to play it throughout the 2012 Senate campaign as they try to draw distinctions between “Big Sandy Farmer” Sen. Jon Tester and “Millionaire Congressman” Denny Rehberg.

Since this is going to be one of the major sub-themes of the 2012 U.S. Senate Race, I’ll take a few minutes to look as just some of the fact available in the public record.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Tester’s net worth in 2009 was estimated at $602,004 to $1,280,000, which is well below the Senate average in 2009 of $13.4 million.

Rehberg’s net worth in 2009, according to the same source, was estimated at $6,598,014 to $56,244,997, which is well above the House average of $5 million.

According to the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the current salary for all Senators and Members is $174,000. The salary for the Speaker is $223,500 and the salary for the Majority and Minority Leaders is $193,400.

According to the USDA Department of Economic Research, the median household income in Montana in 2009 was $42, 222.

I doubt voters will feel much sympathy for Rehberg’s claim of being “land rich and cash poor,” because by Montana standards  one could argue both Tester and Rehberg are “rich.”

Liberal bloggers feuding over Tester’s record

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, once a darling of the Montana and national liberal blogosphere, appears to be having some trouble with the netroots as he embarks on a tough reelection campaign against Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg.

On issues ranging from wilderness to immigration reform to wolves the past several months have seen liberals’  irritation with Tester go from a slow simmer to a rolling boil in the blogosphere. 

National blogger Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame—one of Tester’s most ardent and influential netroots supporters in the 2006 election—slammed Tester in December for voting against the DREAM Act, a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens who were brought to the United States as children. The bill was a top priority of Congressional Democrats last session, but Tester and fellow Montana Sen. Max Baucus joined three other Senate Democrats and in voting against the measure, which Tester referred to as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

Wrote Kos:

“Not only will I do absolutely nothing to help his reelection bid, but I will take every opportunity I get to remind people that he is so morally bankrupt that he'll try to score political points off the backs of innocent kids who want to go to college or serve their country in the military.”

More recently a fiery debate erupted on the Missoula blog 4&20 blackbirds over a post by frequent anonymous liberal blogger JC. In the post JC criticizes Tester for breaking key campaign promises dealing with wildness protection and the use of legislative riders and accuses the senator of marginalizing liberal policy critics by calling them “extremists”:

During Jon’s first term in office he took two actions that have explicitly gone against his promises: 1) he has introduced his Logging Bill, which would release certain lands protected as wilderness under current statutes and management practices; and 2) he inserted the wolf delisting rider into the 2011 Budget Bill.

Both pieces of legislation have been heavily panned by those who supported [former progressive Democratic Senate candidate] Paul Richards in his withdrawal from the primary race, and endorsement of Tester–and by many, many others. And for that vocal criticism of Tester’s legislation, Tester labeled his former supporters “extremists.” I guess their position once upon a time wasn’t too extreme for him to shake hands with. And Jon invited “extremist” Paul onto the stage for a victory salute. But those supporters have not changed their principles, policies, or politics. Jon Tester has.

But Tester supporters were quick to fire back arguing, in part, that Tester never pretended to be the liberal the netroots hoped he’d be, and that criticism of Tester is only aiding Republican Denny Rehberg’s effort to unseat the one-term Democrat.

Wrote commenter Jake:

We must remember that the lines have been drawn and our primary focus has to be to get Jon re-elected. The alternative is not in any way acceptable. Intellectual squabbling is a waste of energy, especially as some have estimated, it could be a close race.

Helena educator and 0ne-time Democratic gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba (well, he filed for governor anyway), picked up the discussion on his blog Intelligent Discontent where he provided a lengthy rebuttal to JC’s post on 4&20 blackbirds. Pogreba says he’s troubled by the “developing trend in which progressives seem a lot more interested in tearing down a moderate-left Senator like Tester” than in attacking his opponent.

Writes Pogreba:

“The fact remains that Senator Tester is who he represented himself to be, not the person we progressives want him to be all the time. Montana’s not going to elect Bernie Sanders; it’s not going to elect Russ Feingold (hell, Wisconsin doesn’t even elect Russ Feingold anymore). What we can do is to support a Senator who looks out for the working class, did his best to create a Wilderness Bill that balanced environmental protection with political and economic reality in the state, and who has worked to protect small businesses and family farms here in Montana.”

The comments sections of each of the blog posts I reference above are well worth reading, if not lengthy. It’s too bad I don’t have the time or space to highlight them all here.

However, one interesting nugget stood out from comments on the 4&20 blackbirds piece.

Wilderness advocate Matthew Koehler, a staunch critic of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, was invited in November to become a front page author on the prominent Montana Democratic blog Left in the West.  He got the gig from Rob Kailey, a.k.a. Wulfgar!, who took over administrative duties of the blog after longtime administrator Jay “Touchstone” Stevens left in November, followed shortly thereafter by blog founder Matt Singer. 

In announcing Koehler’s elevation to front-page post status, Kailey wrote:

His issues may often be singular, and his statements may not always meet with approval. I don't care. He has a great deal to say of importance to the left.  That I do care about.

But according to  a comment Koehler left on the 4&20 blackbirds post , he apparently lost  front page posting privileges on LiTW after openly criticizing Tester for attaching a rider that removes grey wolves from the Endangered Species Act to a must-pass spending bill.

Some might argue all of this blog squabbling is much ado about nothing.

That may be true, but it’s hard to deny that the netroots played a integral role early on in Tester’s rise from obscure Montana dirt farmer to U.S. Senator…as Tester himself said in an August 2006 interview shortly after his surprising defeat of presumed front-runner John Morrison in the Democratic primary:

“I’ll tell you, I think [blogs] are critically important to this campaign…They’ve brought more people into the political process, and I have nothing but high praise for what they’ve been able to do and what they’ve given me.”

An overstatement? Maybe.

But During the 2006 Senate campaign Act Blue donors raised $342,823 from over 10,000 individual online contributions for Tester’s campaign, mostly from blogs. ActBlue donations to Tester’s 2006 campaign outnumbered donations from any single PAC, according to OpenSecrets.org.

There’s no question that an incumbent Senator—in what is likely to be one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country—will rely less on netroots  enthusiasm and activism as he will on the the traditional party resources.

What remains to be seen is whether Tester—a candidate lefty bloggers almost universally fawned over in 2006—will electorally suffer from the divisions flaring up among what was once his most active and vocal base.

Possible 2012 contenders?

The Capitol is abuzz following the news that Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg is planning announce his bid for the U.S. Senate.

Rep. Franke Wilmer, D-Bozeman, confirmed Tuesday that she plans to seek Rehberg’s House seat.

Bozeman businessman Steve Daines, the only Republican to officially announce his intent to run for the Senate, is expected to announce on Thursday that he’s stepping out of Rehberg’s way in order to pursue the House instead.

No others have officially announced their plans, but here are some of the names floating around the Capitol for possible 2012 U.S. House bids:

Tyler Gernant, D-Missoula

Gernant, a Missoula attorney, mounted a respectable challenge to eventual Democratic Party nominee Dennis McDonald in 2010. Gernant has run a state-wide campaign, so he should have some name recognition among the party faithful. Gernant said he has been considering another run for the House even before the news that Rehberg would likely seek the Senate, but he hasn’t made a decision yet.

“It’s something I’ve thought about, but I’m going to check around before I make a decision,” Gernant said. “A lot of good could come from that seat and I don’t think Montanan’s have gotten much in the past 12 years.”

Sen. Kim Gillan, D-Billings

Gillan is the minority whip for the Senate Democrats. She served in the House from 1997-2004, and was the minority leader in the 2001 Session. Originally from El Cerrito, Calif., Gillan is the Workforce Development Coordinator for Montana State University-Billings.

“I will wait until after the session before I make any decisions," Gillan said. "My constituents sent me up here to work on jobs, business equipment tax reform and I've got my anti-bullying bill. I don't want (constituents) to think I'm distracted from the job they sent me here to do."

Sen. Shannon Augare, D-Browning

Augare was first elected to the House in 2007 and was the Democratic Whip in the 2009 session before running successfully for the Senate in 2010.

Augare said he, too, is thinking about a possible House run.

"I think every politician has considered running for higher office," Augare said. "I've had some conversations about the House, but I really don't know where I'm at at this point in time. There are some opportunities on the horizon."

Neil Livingstone

Livingstone is co-chairman and CEO of Executive Action, a Washington, D.C.-based crisis management firm. He’s considered an internationally recognized terrorism expert, and he’s probably the most intriguing of the possible 2012 contenders.

According to his official bio:

He is a familiar face on the nation's newscasts as a commentator on terrorism, intelligence, and national security issues. A veteran of more than 1300 television appearances, he has appeared on such programs as "Nightline," "Meet the Press," "Today," "The Early Show," "Crossfire," "Newsmaker Sunday," "The Charlie Rose Show," "Hardball," "Dateline," "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer," "The O'Reilly Report," and the evening newscasts on all of the major networks.

According to multiple news reports (<-three separate links there), Livingstone is said s also said to be considering a run for office in Montana. He purchased a house here in 2009 and registered the Internet domain livingstoneforgovernor.com.

Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's term ends in 2012 and he can’t run again due to term limits.

A spokesman for Livingstone could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

A Montana GOP source said Livingstone’s name is still being tossed around as a possible state-wide or congressional candidate. It’s not clear whether Livingstone would challenge the popular Rehberg, take on Steve Daines in a Republican House primary, or seek the Governor’s seat…if any.

Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel

Kerns, a Tea Party Republican, is also been mentioned as a possible candidate for the House or Governor seats. Kerns, who ran unsuccessfully for Speaker of the House this session, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

2012 here we come! Senate race to be a bruiser

Roll Call beat Congressman Denny Rehberg to the punch last night, reporting that the six-term Republican would announce his bid for the U.S. Senate on Saturday.

Quoting an unnamed source in the Rehberg camp, the article stated:

“It’s happening Saturday,” said a knowledgeable Montana GOP political operative. “He’s running. There is a lot of support and enthusiasm back home, and Denny knows he can win.”

…

“The operative offered some internal Rehberg polling numbers showing the Montana Republican in a statistical tie with Tester in a prospective 2012 matchup.”

Rehberg’s campaign is mum on the issue, but you can read between the lines in this statement from Rehberg spokesman Brian Barrett:

“Denny has received a lot of support and encouragement to run for the United States Senate in 2012.  He is weighing all of his options carefully and will announce his decision Saturday.”

UPDATE: I just received this statement from Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy:

“Jon is running for another opportunity to serve Montana in the U.S. Senate, not against anyone. He looks forward to comparing his record of the past four years with any challenger. Jon’s known for creating jobs, cutting spending and working together with his colleagues to get substantive things done for Montanans, and nobody is going to outwork him. We look forward to beginning an honest debate following the 2012 primary a year and a half from now.”

Montana’s Primary Election is Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

Meanwhile, back in Helena, Rep. Franke Wilmer, D-Bozeman, a political science professor at Montana State University, announced she plans to seek Rehberg’s (presumed) open seat. If elected, Wilmer would be the first woman to hold that seat since Jeannette Rankin.

In an interview with Capitol reporters this afternoon, Wilmer, a three-term member of the House,  said she considered running for Congress a decade ago. She said she has the experience, qualifications and the common sense ideals to be an effective legislator in Washington, D.C.

Wilmer said her campaign will be built around three major themes:

1) Reducing the Deficit – “There are some good bi-partisan ideas out there. This is not a partisan issue.”

2) Health Care – “If health care reform is going to be declared unconstitutional then we’ve got to get on with the program and fix it because we need it.”

3) Energy: “Montanans don’t like having to make a tradeoff between developing new energy and protecting our natural resources. It’s shouldn’t be one or the other.”

Wilmer said her decision to seek the House seat hinged, in part, on whether Rehberg would stay in the race:

“It’s hard to beat an incumbent that has such widespread support. I don’t know if I’d want to push that rock up hill.”

As far as I know, no one else is publically talking about running for Congress on the Democrats’ side, but apparently at least a handful of state lawmakers are testing the waters.  It’s unlikely that Rehberg will face any serious primary opposition from a Republican.

Bozeman Businessman Steve Daines, who ran for Lieutenant Governor on a failed gubernatorial ticket in 2008, announced in November  that he would run against Tester.  However, a  Montana GOP  insider told me then that  Daines was prepared to step aside from the senate race if Rehberg decided to throw his hat in the ring. In that scenario Daines would then run for Rehberg’s House seat, the source said.

Thus it came as no surprise to see this statement from Daines’ campaign in my e-mail inbox this morning:

“U.S. Senate candidate Steve Daines will make a major campaign announcement Thursday February 3rd.”

Will Daines announce he his switching races to run for the House?

Most likely. Stay tuned.

Now that Roll Call spilled the beans about Rehberg’s plans the story has gone national. Political guru’s are already handicapping the Tester/Rehberg race and it’s possible implications for the Senate in 2012. According to the Cook Political Report, via Jennifer Rubin at WaPo:

Rehberg's entry vaults this contest that had been in the Likely Democratic column to Toss Up, bringing the total number of Democratic-held seats in that column to five. Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) as well as the open seat in North Dakota are already in the Toss Up column. . .

Speculation over Rehberg’s 2012 plans has been rampant for years. I think it’s safe to say that most political insiders for quite some time expected Rehberg would challenge first-term Tester. After all, Rehberg was the only Republican to ever come within striking distance of Max Baucus, losing to Montana’s senior senator by a mere 5 percent of the vote in 1996, and he’s been politically untouchable in his six House races winning by wide margins in each.

Rehberg fueled speculation about a possible Senate run throughout his 2010 reelection campaign, where he spent almost as much time attacking Tester as he did his opponent in the race, Democrat Dennis McDonald. Rehberg held some 23 “public listening sessions” on Tester’s signature piece of legislation, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, throughout his campaign. At a debate in Bozeman, Rehberg not-so-subtly attacked Tester for the way in which the proposed legislation was created: 

“I want to point out the difference between collaboration and consensus. (Tester’s bill) was a collaboration effort. Those were selected people that came together around a table and decided and then wanted to go out and try to convince everybody else it was a great idea. That’s different than consensus. Consensus is actually getting out now before the legislation is introduced and sitting down and listening to them.” 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the first group to rush to Tester’s defense on Tuesday.

DSCC Communications Director Eric Schultz released the following statement:

"Congressman Rehberg has been in Washington for ten years and has nothing to show for it. He's got a record long on spending but short on accomplishments. Rehberg has taken on 9/11 heroes and sued Montana firefighters. Montanans rejected the last career politician who took on the firefighters, and we expect them to ultimately do the same this time."

The Montana Democratic Party was also quit to attack, bringing up, predictably, a certain boating crash on Flathead Lake:

"This is turning out to be one of the worst-kept secrets in Montana," said Ted Dick, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "Despite his near-fatal boat accident with a drunk driver, his frivolous lawsuit against Montana firefighters, years of deficit spending and voting against Montana, and an embarrassing record of, well, nothing, Dennis Rehberg wants a new job. He's going to have a tough two years ahead of him explaining to Montanans why he deserves it."

Let the fireworks fly!

Political insiders tell me they expect a flurry of news in the coming days regarding the 2012 elections, including the possibility of other candidates jumping into the race.

Politico: Tester a top GOP target in 2012

According to Politico, Montana Sen. Jon Tester is near the top of the Republican Party’s hit list for 2012:

The flat-topped junior senator from Montana starts the cycle vying with [Nebraska Sen. Ben] Nelson for the undesirable status of most endangered Senate Democrat. On Saturday, Bozeman businessman Steve Daines is expected to enter the race, touting his success as a local job creator at an international consulting company. The Montana Democratic Party is welcoming Daines to the fray with a Federal Election Commission complaint that accuses him of using “soft money” to air an attack ad aimed at Tester that is masked as issue advocacy.

The big question mark in the race is the state’s at-large Congressman Denny Rehberg, who hasn’t yet indicated his plans. His spokesman would only go as far as to say, “Denny is focused on doing the job the overwhelming majority of Montana voters sent him to Washington to do.”

State GOP Chairman Will Deschamps suggests that if Rehberg wants the nomination, it’ll be his for the taking.

“Last two cycles, Denny has carried Missoula County, which is so blue you can’t even think straight,” said Deschamps.

Neil Livingstone, a frequent national security commentator on Fox News Channel, told POLITICO he’s also eyeing the contest but said that if Rehberg runs, he won’t.

“Denny’s a good friend of mine, and I’ll support him on his decision,” he said.

Rumors of a possible Tester vs. Rehberg matchup began to swirl shortly after Tester introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in July 2009. Rehberg quickly interjected himself into Tester’s signature piece of legislation in December when he launched a “Wilderness Listening Tour.”

Rehberg has also vocally slammed Tester’s role in the Port of Whitetail debacle, accusing Tester of “shooting from the hip” by supporting the $8.5 million dollar renovation at little-used remote border crossing.

Rehberg remains tight-lipped about his plans for 2012, but many political insiders expect he will eventually run.

When asked last week by Tribune Washington, D.C. reporter Ledyard King if he was thinking of taking on Tester, Rehberg had this to say:

“Do you really expect me to answer that? C'mon. For God’s sake, this is two days after the election. I am so excited about getting back and serving in the majority. That’s what I’m focused on … I just have no idea (about a run for Senate). I haven’t even gotten my yard signs down yet.” 

Montana Republican Party sources tell me that if Rehberg does jump into the race, Daines would happily step aside from the Senate race and pursue Rehberg’s House seat.

Rehberg would undoubtedly be the prohibitive favorite in a GOP primary.

Man, we’ve hardly sailed past the 2010  election and already the 2012 waters are getting choppy!

Steve Daines (hasn't yet) announced is 2012 Senate campaign

I mentioned on Monday that Bozeman businessman Steve Daines is poised to launch his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign on Saturday.

Politico reported on the rumor earlier Tuesday evening:

Daines would not confirm his plans, but while traveling in Australia he told POLITICO by telephone that he is planning a political announcement Saturday.

He noted that he has already spoken to GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg, the state's only House member and another potential Senate candidate, about his decision.

"Denny's a very good friend. He represents Montana very well. I don't think he's sure what he's going to do. He's spent 10 years in the House, he'll be a senior member in the House. That'll be a better place to serve from where he's been in the past. He's got a pretty good role in the House in the majority," Daines said.

Meanwhile, the Montana Democratic Party has accused Daines of running an illegal shadow campaign for Democrat Jon Tester’s U.S. Senate seat.

According to the Associated Press, the Democrats filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission accusing Daines of "running a shadow campaign using soft money from a Colorado political action committee."

At issue is this YouTube ad by a Colorado-based group called Common Sense Issues, posted more than nine months ago. In it Daines attacks Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester and appears on the screen as he states the fact that he's a "fifth generation Montanan" and that he's "disappointed with just how out of touch Max Baucus and Jon Tester are..." Well, see for yourself:



From the AP:

David Benson, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party, said the video essentially launches Daines' campaign for the seat. The party's complaint says the Bozeman businessman is more than $5,000 into his campaign and is beyond merely "testing the waters" for a political run.

If a challenger isn't going to follow basic election laws as we fight for those Montana values, we'll demand accountability," Benson said.

Daines, of course, dismisses the Democrats' complaint:

Daines maintained his non-candidate status Tuesday and suggested Democrats are trying to silence him with the complaint, which he said he has not yet seen.

"We've not received anything, other than from the media," he told the [Billings] Gazette. "I'm curious that they're talking to you before they've filed this with the FEC. I'm not even a candidate right now."

Well, maybe not officially. But it's pretty difficult to watch that ad and not see it as a campaign ad. And then there's the YouTube channel, called MontanaNeedsSteve, where you can these non-campaign videos as well:





Whether we like it or not, campaign 2012 is in full swing as Republican try to cash in on the momentum of last week's election. Are we in for another long, bitter election cycle?