Anonymous group launches website about group backed by anonymous donors

As I mentioned in yesterday’s Lowdown post, on Wednesday flyers began showing up around the Capitol featuring a mock “WANTED” poster for Christian LeFer, a “key player” in the infamous dark money group American Tradition Partnership.

The flyers directed readers to “see if your legislator is implicated” in alleged “illegal campaign coordination” by visiting www.ATPexposed.org.

Without rehashing the whole URL snafu, which you can read about here, suffice it to say the anonymous leafleters meant to direct people to www.ATPexposed.COM.

If you go to ATPExposed.com you’ll find three posts asserting ATP illegally coordinated legislative campaigns “with extreme right-wing candidates.”

Many of the links on the apparently brand-new website are not yet populated with content, but under the heading “incriminating evidence” you’ll find an article that attempts to connect the infamous Senate GOP leadership emails I wrote about last month with ATP campaign activities.

A post titled “ARVIS and RINOpoacher” draws a connection between a now-defunct website domain once registered to LeFler and the “Average Republican Vote Index Score,” or "ARVIS,” chart contained in the documents revealed by the Great Falls Tribune last month.

ARVIS is a score developed by the Republican Legislative Leadership Committee and applied to each legislative district. The number indicates how likely voters in that district are to elect a Republican candidate in the general election. The ARVIS number is based primarily on the voting history of the district in presidential elections since most voters vote their own party in presidential races. (Democrats have a similar number for determining their party’s strength in a district called the “DPQ,” which stands for “Democratic Performance Quotient.)

An ARVIS number 50 or more means there is a greater than 50 percent chance that voters will elect a Republican in that legislative district in the general election. Republicans have used the ARVIS rating system to identify "safe Republican," "lean Republican," "lean Democrat" and "safe Democratic" districts. During election cycles the party uses the ARVIS information to determine how to allocate financial resources in those races that might be competitive in a general election.

This undated spreadsheet was contained in the packet of emails between Senate President Jeff Essmann, Sen. Majority Leader Art Wittich, Sen. Majority Whip Frederick "Eric" Moore, Sen. Dave Lewis, and Sen. Ed Walker.

The documents showed how key members of the Senate Republican caucus, including  the current leadership team, began plotting their power play as early as September of last year.

Priest told me in an interview that the "Senate Policy Committee" is the name members of the current leadership team uses to refer to themselves and their supporters in the Senate GOP caucus.

According to ATPExposed.com:

The two columns on the left contain the names of the radicals that pledged or planned to pledge their votes to the Essman and Wittich hardline ticket. The two columns on the right contain the names of the legislators that refused to adopt this extremist agenda. The top two rows contain safe Republican seats. The bottom two rows contain swing and liberal seats.

Reagan Republicans in safe conservative seats didn’t pledge themselves to the hardline ticket should look at Bruce Tutvedt as a cautionary tale. ATP and their shell groups backed out of state carpetbagger Rollan Roberts II. Roberts had only been in Montana for two years before he took on lifetime Flathead resident Tutvedt.

So did Senate GOP leaders use their party’s internal ARVIS rating system to identify which incumbent Republicans who did not support the Essmann/Wittich ticket could be defeated in a primary? Was that information shared with dark money groups?

Last month I asked Priest, Wittich and Essmann about the apparent connection between the ARVIS list and GOP legislators who faced primary challenges -- and in some cases were targeted by dark money spending. The three lawmakers said the ARVIS list referred to the general election cycle and had nothing to do with primaries.

Essmann said he did not coordinate with any third-party groups on any Republican primary campaigns.

Wittich said he “didn’t think” he coordinated with any third party groups.

“Did we participate in primaries? I think I was asked about various primaries but I don’t know about third party groups getting involved with it,” Wittich said.

Wittich said supported Kalispell Republican Sen. Bruce Tutvedt’s opponent but he said he did not coordinate with ATP.

It’s worth noting that Wittich’s law firm is listed with the Montana Secretary of State’s office as Western Tradition Partnership’s (ATP’s earlier incarnation) registered agent. According to records filed at the Montana Commissioner of Political practices, WTP paid Wittich’s firm at least $9,000 in 2010. Wittich said his firm represented WTP on one case in 2010.

“When that case began in 2010 (WTP) was an out of state company and they needed a registered agent in Montana,” Wittich said.

ATPExposed.com promises to “reveal more of ATP’s agenda each week,” but there are no clues as to who is running the site.

Some simple Google sleuthing indicates whoever is running ATPExposed.com is tied to the anonymous Democrat blog MTStreetfighter.com. A cached version of the ATPExposed.com test page dated Jan. 23 -- before the sight was launched -- displays comments on the right hand side of the blog. Those same comments appeared here and here on the MTStreetfighter.com blog from posts dating back to Jan. 16 and and Jan. 17. Both sights also use the same WordPress blog template.

Lots of anonymity in Montana politics these days. Is this what the U.S. Supreme Court had in mind when they ruled on Citizens United? Is this the future of politics in America?

Campaign finance watchdog: Texas fracking billionaires gave $51k to Montana GOP candidates in 2012

According to a report by the non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group National Institute for Money in State Politics, Texas fracking billionaire brothers Dan and Farris Wilks and their spouses gave  a collective total of $51,040 to more than 70 GOP legislative candidates in 2012. According to the report, in most instances they gave the maximum amount.

You can see the contributions from Dan, Staci, Dan and Staci, Farris, JoAnn, and Farris and JoAnn at FollowTheMoney.org.

“Sixty-four of the candidates they supported won; 63 are now legislators, and Tim Fox is the attorney general. Across both chambers, 70 percent of Republican legislators and 42 percent of the legislative body as a whole received contributions from the Wilkses during the 2012 election.”

You can read the full report here.

It’s worth a read.

The Follow The Money report draws attention to Dec. 13, 2012 Billings Gazette article detailing how the Wilks brothers are buying up huge tracts of land in eastern Montana:

“Near where the borders of Fergus, Musselshell and Golden Valley counties meet south of the Little Snowy Mountains, two billionaire Texas brothers have quietly collected more than 177,000 acres of ranch land in the last two years.”

According to Gazette reporter Brett French, the Wilks brothers own at least 276,000 acres in seven counties in eastern Montana.

According to Forbes, the Wilks brothers are worth an estimated $1.4 billion each. The Wilks brothers started out running a family masonry business in Texas and Oklahoma before venturing into hydraulic fracturing in and oil field serves in 2002.

According to Follow The Money some people are are concerned the Wilks brothers are amassing land to frack.

Regulation of fracking is largely left to the states; the EPA has limited authority to regulate the industry. Consequently, state lawmakers and officials determine the regulations and permitting requirements for drillers.

Election Day still gives me goose bumps

One of my earliest memories is of Election Day, 1984.

I was a five-year-old future voter, and my Dad took me along to the polls when got home from work. My dad is a retired social studies teacher, so it’s no wonder he instilled in me a sense of civic duty early on by dragging me to polls on Election Day.

I remember my dad chatting with the election judges, most of whom were familiar faces after years of voting in the same place. I remember following him into the tiny little booth with the blue curtain. I remember back then the ballots were punch cards, and you slipped the yellow card into a box that held it in place, then you used these little metal punch things to punch the hole next to the candidate of your choosing. To me the whole process seemed so important, even then.

Elections Day has always felt sacred to me, from those early days of watching my dad punch his ballot, to my first vote for president in 2000, to today.

So much hinges on this one day of the year. From the future of a local school to the future of our country, Election Day is the day we as citizens get to play a critical role in the outcome.

My hope is that voters still feel at least some sense of civic pride on Election Day, even after all the millions of dollars spent on TV attack ads, all the thousands of campaign fliers which filled up our mailboxes, and the dozens (or more) phone calls from campaigns, pollsters and activists.

Our politics are far from perfect and there are plenty of reasons for people across the political spectrum to complain these days. No matter what the outcome, a large portion of our state and our country are not going to be pleased with the result. We are a polarized electorate, perhaps more so than at any other time in our recent history. But my hope is that when the dust settles tomorrow, we can move forward as community, a state and a country with the goal of trying to do more to understand the other side. My hope is that regardless of who our president, or governor, or senator or next county commissioner is on Jan. 1, that we as a citizenry will vow to work harder to be more civil, to focus more on solving problems that affect us all, and to care more deeply for each other. Because regardless of who our elected officials are, at the end of the day we’re all still in this together.

Money in politics, then and now

While rummaging around in the archives at the Montana Historical Society yesterday I came across a Nov. 1978 headline in the Great Falls Tribune that caught my attention:

The 1978 headline juxtaposed with what I watched last night on Montana PBS was a stark reminder of money’s dramatic influence our politics today .

If you didn’t watch the Frontline/Marketplace special “Big Sky, Big Money,” do yourself a favor and do it now. You can see first hand how third party groups, SuperPACs, and shadowy tax-exempt 501(c)(4) “dark money” groups are trying to influence the outcomes our elections here in Montana while hiding from public view the identity of those trying to influence us. It’s a sobering exposé of  post-Citizens United Montana and the group whose lawsuit reaffirmed the controversial Supreme Court decision and tossed out our 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act in the process.  Watch it here or go to Frontline’s excellent website for more interactive features about money in politics:

Watch Big Sky, Big Money on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Montana State University political science professor David Parker is featured in the program. Parker says outside groups spent $6.8 million on the Montana Senate race through June alone.

According to Great Falls Tribune Washington bureau reporter Malia Rulon, during the first three weeks of October, Montanans were subjected to 25,211 political ads about the race between Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and his Republican challenger, Rep. Denny Rehberg. During that three-week period, groups spent $3.27 million.

So in 1978 Democrat Max Baucus’ and Republican Larry Williams’ campaigns combined spent less than $1 million on the Senate race and in 2012 the campaigns and third-party groups, many of whom are funded by secret donors and corporations, spent more than three times as much in a three-week period alone.

“2012 will go down as a record-pulverizing year for political advertising,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

The future of American politics post-Citizens United is here folks. Like what you see?

What everyone’s talking about: Big Sky, Big Money

In case you haven’t seen it yet, this ProPublica/Frontline report investigating the shadowy “dark money” group American Tradition Partnership is causing quite a stir in Big Sky Country this morning (emphases mine):

The boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled "Montana $ Bomb."

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates' strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal "coordination" between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

"My opinion, for what it's worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns," said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado.

It’s a long read, but well worth it.

This Oct. 29 ProPublica/Frontline report is just the tip of the iceberg. A series of investigative reports by ProPublica, Frontline and The Center for Public Integrity dig deep into the question: “who is funding attacks on Montana’s election laws?”

The reportage will continue on PBS tomorrow, Oct. 30, when Frontline airs what former Montana Public Radio capital bureau reporter Emilie Ritter referred to on her facebook page as “a big ol’  journalism bomb"”:

Watch Big Sky, Big Money, an investigation with Marketplace on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

The program airs at 8:30 p.m. on Montana PBS, but cick here to check your local listings. It will also be available online beginning Oct. 30.

In this Oct. 22 report, journalists Kim Barker, of ProPublica, and Emma Schwartz, of Frontline, uncover evidence that Western Tradition Partnership “misled the IRS when it applied for the tax-exempt status that shields its donors from being publicly disclosed.”

Documents obtained by ProPublica and Frontline show that Western Tradition Partnership, now known as American Tradition Partnership, said it would not attempt to sway elections when it asked the IRS to recognize it as a tax-exempt social welfare organization in late 2008.

Shortly before submitting the application, however, Western Tradition Partnership, which bills itself as a "grassroots lobbying" organization dedicated to fighting radical environmentalists, and a related political committee sent out fliers weighing in on candidates for Montana state office. The mailers blitzed districts in Montana days before the Republican primary.

Also last Monday The Center For Public Integrity published this report showing that a millionaire furniture store mogul from Colorado dumped $300,000 to get ATP “on its feet”:

In its 2008 application for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization, ATP listed its “primary donor” as Jacob Jabs, Colorado’s largest furniture retailer and a donor to Republican candidates and causes. Jabs pledged a $300,000 contribution to get ATP on its feet, according to IRS records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Jabs, through a spokesman, on Monday said he did not make a donation and has "never heard of" ATP or the group's previous incarnation.

"He did not commit to the funds indicated by Athena Dalton in the filing so clearly he did not give them funds," wrote Charlie Shaulis, director of communications for American Furniture Warehouse, Jabs' company, in an email to I-News Network in Colorado.

Dalton wrote a letter to the IRS asking the agency to speed up the process for awarding it nonprofit  status. The letter states that the approval was needed quickly, otherwise Jabs would not make a contribution. The agency gave it the thumbs up four days later.

All of this reporting is coming out in the two weeks before the Nov. 6 election, and tomorrow’s Frontline exposé is exactly one week from election day.

How will “dark money” impact our elections?

We might not know for months, or even years what the full effect has been or will be. But I for one am glad the rest of the country is taking an interest in Montana’s elections and examining how Big Sky Country has become a petri dish for experiments in “dark money” manipulation of politics.

Dems slam Fox’s role in SME bankruptcy

The Montana Democratic Party is criticizing Republican Attorney General Candidate Tim Fox's role in the ongoing Southern Montana Electrical Cooperative bankruptcy proceeding. 

Earlier this month the Democrats accused Fox of "playing a central role in a legal scheme that could put millions (of dollars) in the pockets of out-of-state predatory lenders."

At issue is Fox's role in representing lenders who gave money to embattled SME to build the Highwood Generating Station.

First some background: Critics of the beleaguered power venture say the giant finance companies knew, or should have known, that loaning SME the capital to build Highwood Generating Station was a risky venture.

Public Service Commission chairman Travis Kavulla, a Republican, said in an interview with the Tribune last month that the loan Prudential Capital Group of Dallas gave to SME was "totally well-above the market rates" given to similar power plants.

Prudential, the largest lender to loan SME money, loaned the company $75 million at 8 percent interest which the company used along with along with a $10 million loan from another lender at 7.25 percent interest, “to pay for a plant that should have cost more like half that," Kavulla said, adding that the the loans were "risky and predatory."

The Democrats jumped on an recent Associated Press story, in which Kavulla said he he is "concerned the individual members of the electricity cooperative may end up paying the price for the bad decisions by Southern managers and lenders."

The cost to run the plant currently exceeds the open-market price of electricity, Kavulla said.

So where does Tim Fox come into play in all this?

Fox is representing Prudential Capital Group, the largest lender, in the ongoing bankruptcy saga. According to federal court records, lawyer and trustee fees related to the bankruptcy proceedings have already eclipsed $1 million.

"If Fox and his clients have their way in court, SME customers — both ratepayers and taxpayers — could be on the hook to pay back millions, including over a million in attorney fees. This will amount to tens of thousands of dollars each for a loan that Fox's clients likely knew was 'risky and predatory," the Democratic Party said in its Oct. 1 release.

Fox's attorney fees account for a just a tiny fraction of the overall fees paid in the case. According to court records Fox, who is charging an hourly rate of $250, filed reimbursement requests totaling $12,500 since getting involved in November, 2011.

That's chump change compared to many other lawyers involved in the case, some of whom charge up to $845 per hour for their time.

For his part Fox declined to comment on his role in representing Prudential in the SME bankruptcy.

"I don't talk about my clients' business in pending cases," Fox said in an interview. "I can't do that, ethically. It's public record that I have appeared on behalf of a creditor in a bankruptcy case, but that's all I can say about that."

Fox's opponent in the attorney general race, Helena Democrat Pam Bucy, said in a statement that she believes everyone deserves legal representation, but she is troubled that Fox took Prudential on as a client in a case that opposes Montana ratepayers and taxpayers.

"The attorney general is Montana's chief consumer protection advocate," Bucy, a former assistant attorney general under Democrat Mike McGrath. "We established the Office of Consumer Protection at the Department of Justice so that Montanans would have legal recourse in cases like this, where out-of-state lenders have made risky and predatory loans to Montana consumers. Since we are both running to be Montana's chief legal representative, it is alarming to see my opponent put the profits of risky, predatory out-of-state lenders before the well-being of Montanans."

Since electric coops are not regulated by the PSC, the SME case would fall to the next attorney general and the Office of Consumer Protection if consumers file a complaint of unfair debt collection practices, the Democrats claim.

According to the latest Public Policy Polling survey, Fox has 45-35 lead over Bucy with a whopping 20 percent still undecided.

Critics question Bullock's strategy in Citizens United challenge

Editor’s note: For those who are interested in reading more about this case I included the complete text from today’s story in the Great Falls Tribune with links to relevant source material.

Is Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock ignoring the best possible challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling?

That's the question being raised by a growing chorus of activists and legal bloggers who claim the key to overturning the high court's polarizing landmark ruling - which allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns - lies in the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

According to the legal theory proffered by Hawaii-based The Eleventh Amendment Movement and Essential Information, a nonprofit citizen action group founded by Ralph Nadar, the 11th Amendment bars federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought by private parties against states.

The groups argue the Supreme Court should not even consider the lawsuit challenging Montana's 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act, American Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General.

Attorneys for the state say they're following the best course of action to defend Montana's campaign finance law, and one legal scholar called arguments in support of 11th Amendment jurisdictional claims "frivolous."

Supporters of the legal strategy say Montana has the best chance to deal a potentially lethal blow to the controversial Citizens United ruling but Bullock, the Democratic nominee for Montana governor, is refusing to take the best shot.

Part of their argument centers on the fact that lawyers for ATP made a technical error when they named Bullock, in his official capacity as the state's attorney general, as a defendant.

Supporters of the 11th Amendment argument say Bullock should seize on that technical error and try to convince the Supreme Court to toss the case, even if that means avoiding the chance to argue the merits of the case.

"Montana has chosen to carry the banner of campaign finance reform for the whole country, and this case could well determine whether Citizens United applies to every state in the union," said TEAM attorney Carl Mayer.

Mayer is an attorney who filed one of two amicus,or "friend-of-the-court," briefs to the Supreme Court arguing that ATP's attempt to overturn Montana's campaign finance law should be rejected on 11th Amendment jurisdictional grounds.

"You have a conservative five-person majority on the court, and they all have embraced the 11th Amendment and state's rights arguments in other contexts," Mayer said. "For an attorney at any level to not raise a jurisdictional issue, especially in a case like this, is a serious litigation error."

Bullock's spokesman, John Doran, said the legal briefs filed by Montana are supported by some of the brightest legal minds in the country.

"Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia, as well as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and John McCain, R-Ariz., agree with Montana's position," Doran said. "Our briefs focus on what this case is actually about: money in state politics and whether the court opened the floodgates of corruption in the states when it decided Citizens United."

On Thursday, the nine Supreme Court justices were scheduled to meet in conference to give final consideration to the case after delaying a decision last week.

According to TEAM founder Adam Furgatch, the high court has three main options:

» It could accept the case and schedule a hearing for oral arguments;

» It could accept the case and summarily reverse the Montana Supreme Court's decision, or;

» It could reject the case and thus effectively uphold the Montana Supreme Court's decision.

Furgatch said Bullock still has time to raise the 11th Amendment issue before the Supreme Court announces its decision on whether to accept or deny the case, which could come as early as Monday.

According to Furgatch, if Bullock files a one-page motion between now and then asking the high court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the 11th Amendment claims, then it would be difficult for the justices to accept and then summarily dismiss the case without first considering the 11th Amendment jurisdictional claims.

"There hasn't been one single legal commentator or law professor who has been able to find fault with the 11th Amendment argument," Furgatch said.

On Thursday, one such law professor did step forward to dismiss Furgatch and Mayer's arguments.

William "Bill" Marshall is the Kenan professor of law at the University of North Carolina. Marshall also served as deputy White House counsel and deputy assistant to the president of the United States during the Clinton administration.

Marshall said the 11th Amendment claims laid out in the amicus briefs "border on the frivolous" and defended Bullock's decision to not raise the issue before the high court.

"If the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over cases like this one, it would seriously cut back on the ability of the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional rights in cases going back, literally, 100 years," Marshall said. "There's no doubt the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over federal issues.

Mayer and Furgatch said Montana Assistant Attorney General James "Jim" Molloy acknowledged Bullock's office considered the 11th Amendment argument, but the state's attorneys are reluctant to raise the issue.

In a June 6 email to Furgatch and Mayer, Molloy wrote that the Attorney General's office considered TEAM's arguments and theories "with respect to the issues presented in this case, as well as with respect to the potential implications in other contexts, if (TEAM's) theories were adopted."

Furgatch and Mayer contend that Molloy's email appears to acknowledge the 11th Amendment argument is strong enough to win.

"They have a fear that it's a good argument and it could win but they are afraid of potential implications in other contexts, but they don't say what those are," Furgatch said.

Molloy elaborated on the state's position in an interview Thursday.

"The 11th Amendment argument extended to its logical conclusion would mean the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority if a state supreme court were to ignore a Supreme Court ruling," Molloy said. "That's not a position the state of Montana believes in and it is not one we chose to advocate for."

Molloy pointed out TEAM's 11th Amendment argument is already before the court in the form of the two amicus briefs, and he said the justices are free to consider those arguments without the state having to make them.

"We presented it to leading constitutional lawyers around the country. We evaluated it and no one felt it was a wise or meritorious approach to take in this case," Molloy said. Doran said the amicus briefs filed by TEAM and Essential Information do not directly address Citizens United, but instead rely on a "questionable legal theory" that would "basically allow states to avoid following the U.S. Constitution."

"Attorney General Bullock will not be distracted from the real issues presented in this case. He will keep his eye on the ball and continue to fight for clean and fair elections in Montana and across the nation," Doran said.

"All questions before the Supreme Court are questionable before the court rules," TEAM responded in a statement late Thursday. "In this case, where four justices are already opposed to Citizens United on the merits, only one justice needs to be persuaded by our side of the question to make this the winning argument."

The TEAM statement went on to say that contrary to Doran's response, the 11th Amendment argument "allows the precise application of the Constitution's 11th Amendment principles to win the case."

Update: Earlier in the post I linked to David Ziff’s blog. Ziff pointed out that he is not a supporter of the 11th Amendment argument, and in fact has argued against the strategy:

“…I  certainly do not think the 11th Amendment is the key to anything. I think it's a loser argument and (this is sort of the main thrust of my posts) even if the argument wins, it still achieves nothing for folks who want to change Citizens United.”

I apologize for the confusion. Ziff’s blog was one of dozens I read yesterday and I mixed them up when I posted the link.

 

Opposing displays outside GOP convention

As Montana Republicans considered platform planks, elected delegates and speechified to loyal supporters, Bruce Russell, Sr. quietly paced back and forth outside Missoula’s Hilton Garden Inn holding a homemade sign that simply said: “Den of Thieves.”

Russell kept is vigil for nearly four hours Saturday morning, walking back and forth so he wouldn’t be ticketed by police for “loitering.”

“The party inside is responsible for the economic depression that befell this country in 2008,” Russell said.

Russell was also pretty peeved about the float parked in front of the hotel depicting the “Obama Presidential Library” as an bullet-hole-ridden outhouse known as “Out House One".”

Russell, an Army medic in Vietnam, said as a veteran he was appalled by the display.

“That makes me sick no matter who the president is,” he said.

The outhouse featured plenty of…well… let’s just say colorful “graffiti.”

Inside was a outhouse stool with a semi-circle hole with the words “Half Ass” and “Policies of the Left” written next to it and a framed Obama “birth certificate” hung above it.

A poster on the wall said “For a good time call: 1-800 Michelle Hillary Pelosi.”

An historic photograph an unidentified black man was tacked to the wall with the word “Dad” scrawled beneath it.

Here are a few more photos of the…display.

Schweitzer in 2006: ‘I might support’ Romney presidential bid

Six years ago Gov. Brian Schweitzer raised eyebrows in Big Sky Country and beyond when he made an off-hand remark about then-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

The Montana governor — who touched off a firestorm of controversy last week when he told a reporter for The Daily Beast that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee might have some trouble with voters because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico” — didn't use the words "polygamy" or "Mormon" in that interview.

It wasn't even a perceived jab Romney that caught the attention of bloggers and political wonks. In fact it was quite the opposite.

In an Oct. 8, 2006 New York Times profile of Schweitzer, then a rising-star in the Democratic Party, the bombastic Montana governor told Times reporter Mark Sundeen he would consider voting for Romney for president.

Earlier that year Schweitzer, Romney and Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt were part of delegation of governors visiting troops serving in the Middle East as part of "Operation Enduring Freedom."

Schweitzer said he spent a lot of time with Romney on that trip and found him to be a "good guy."

"We talked about all kinds of things, business, family, government, taxes," Schweitzer said.

Schweitzer told Sundeen he supported John McCain's presidential bid in 2000 but soured on McCain because of the way he courted the religious right. Schweitzer went on to say he was intrigued by a possible presidential run by Romney, then the Republican governor of Massachusetts, in 2008.

"If he gets the nomination, I might support him,'" Schweitzer told the Times.

That perceived endorsement of a Republican raise a few Democratic hackles.

A blogger on the national Liberal blog The Daily Kos said he was "appalled" by Schweitzer's comment, writing, "If he keeps saying stuff like this his future in Democratic politics is over."

Closer to home Helena Democratic blogger and one-time Schweitzer primary challenger Don Pogreba wrote: "I know that Schweitzer wants to cultivate an image of independence … but Mitt Romney?"

Romney himself added fuel to the budding gubernatorial  "bromance" in June 2007 when he told a roomful of reporters gathered at the Montana GOP annual convention in Helena: “If any of you see your governor, give him my best. He's a great guy."

Cascade County GOP delegate James Drew, upon hearing the GOP-hopeful's comment about Schweitzer, dropped his support for Romney.

"He said that?” Drew asked me when I was reporter for the Missoula Independent. “Well, he just lost my vote.”

So does Schweitzer — who said in 2006 he'd consider supporting Romney for president — plan to back the Republican in 2012?

Not likely.

"I've watched an evolution in his politics since we traveled together," Schweitzer said in a recent interview. "He's taken a right turn on immigration policy and his recent comments about military expansionism are concerning. I've got concerns about his policies."

Schweitzer said he still thinks Romney is a "good man."

"I haven't met his family, but he's a good family man and he's a warm and good communicator," Schweitzer said. "I just don't really share his vision for the future of America's economic policy."

Former GOP election chief back on the ballot

Former Secretary of State Brad Johnson is back on the June 5 primary ballot after a computer glitch threatened his candidacy for most of the day Wednesday.

Johnson, who is running in a four-way Republican primary to challenge current Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, failed to turn his D-1 business disclosure form to the Commissioner of Political Practices by the March 20, 5 p.m. deadline.

According to state law: "the name of a candidate may not be printed on the official ballot for an election if the candidate or treasurer for a candidate fails to file any statement or report as required by this chapter."

However, lawyer contracted by the commissioner's office later determined that the D-1 form in question was not specifically required under the statute.

"We had attorney look at the statute regarding certification, and because there was a question as to whether the D-1 fit under that requirement we went ahead and certified the four candidates who were missing the D-1 form," said Mary Baker, program supervisor for the Commissioner of Political Practices.

Baker had previously sent a letter to McCulloch Tuesday informing the secretary that nine candidates, including Johnson, failed to submit all the necessary paperwork to the commissioner's office and thus would be ineligible for the primary election ballot.

The Secretary of State's Office then removed Johnson and eight other candidates from the ballot.

Johnson maintained all along that he attempted to file the D-1 form through the CPP's online system and that he thought he had done so successfully. It wasn't until he was contacted by a reporter Wednesday that he realized the CPP office never received the form.

According to Johnson, an investigation by Commissioner of Political Practices Jim Murry and CPP investigator Julie Steab later confirmed that Johnson's computer and Internet browser appeared to be incompatible with the online software used by the commissioner's office.

"We walked through the process that I went through yesterday when I thought I had successfully filed the form," Johnson said. "Sure enough, the submit button at the bottom of the form flashes, there was no error message and no reason to believe it didn't go through properly."

A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Linda McCulloch confirmed that the commissioner's office sent a second letter after business hours Wednesday retracting the names of four candidates who had not filed the D-1 form.

Johnson, who spent much of Wednesday wondering whether his candidacy was in jeopardy, praised Murry and the staff in the commissioner's office for working to correct the snafu.

"The commissioner went out of his way to meet with me and then they were out at my house the same day and they were here working through the actual process I engaged in yesterday," Johnson said. "The commissioner made a very real good-faith effort to resolve this in an expedited matter."

Johnson said the incident highlights the fact that the commissioner's office is in need of additional funding and resources and tools to improve the online filing system.

"I'm not talking about commissioner or his staff's performance. They were great today and went out of their way to expedite this," Johnson said. "The Legislature needs to assign a much higher priority for staffing and funding for that office."

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."

Wanzenried drops bid for governor

I just received an e-mail press release from state Sen. Dave Wanzenried, D-Missoula, state that he intends to discontinue his gubernatorial campaign.

Wanzenried said he didn’t meet fundraising goals for the first two quarters of campaign reporting period.

“Before filing paperwork required to begin raising money last November, I set some very ambitious goals in order to run the type of campaign Montanans expect and deserve,” he said.

“For a variety of reasons, through the first two reporting periods, those goals have not been met. I simply have not attracted enough investors to wage a viable a statewide campaign.”

Wanzenried said his most important job is “to continue to work hard to serve and listen to my constituents in Senate District 49.”

Could Wanzenried’s decision be tied to potential gubernatorial candidate and fellow Democrat Attorney General Steve Bullock’s rumored intentions to run for the office?

Wanzenried said in his statement:

"Steve Bullock is a long-time friend -- he has the skills to lead our state, preserve our budget surplus and create jobs. I've encouraged him to run for Governor and pledged to support him if he does."

A recent Public Policy Poll indicated that Bullock would be the clear frontrunner in a hypothetical six-way Democratic primary if he chose to run for the office. Bullock lead his nearest opponent, Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, 40-27, although neither men have announced plans to run.

So far Bullock has been tight lipped about his intentions for 2012, but speculation that he will seek the seat vacated by Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer continues to mount. Bohlinger has also indicated that he’s considering running for the office.

On the Republican side, the PPP poll showed former Congressman Rick Hill with a solid lead over his potential opponents in a hypothetical seven-way primary contest. Hill lead nearest opponent Neil Livingstone, a cable TV pundit and terrorism expert, by a margin of 35-15.

Jim Messina, Obama’s Fixer

Ari Berman, of The Nation, just published a scathing 3,700-word analysis on the role Montana’s own Jim Messina plays in driving President Barack Obama’s political agenda and reelection campaign.

Messina, of course, was Sen. Max Baucus’ chief of staff until he left to help run Obama’s successful 2008 presidential campaign.

Berman paints a picture of a tough political enforcer intolerant of dissent and fiercely loyal to his boss. It is not a flattering picture of “the most powerful person in Washington that you haven’t heard of.”

Messina, who has served as Obama’s deputy chief of staff under Rahm Emmanuel, is now running Obama’s reelection campaign. The article portrays Messina as the man responsible for turning the Obama ‘08 campaign of  “hope and change” into the Obama administration of “legislative compromises and political timidity.”

“Under Messina, Obama ‘12 could more closely resemble the electoral strategy of Baucus or Bill and Hillary Clinton—cautious, controlling, top-down in structure and devoted to small-bore issues that blur differences between the parties—than Obama ‘08, a grassroots effort on a scale modern politics had never seen.”

The article chronicles Messina’s rise in politics from an organizer in Missoula, to working for Democrats in the Montana Legislature, to working as chief of staff for Sen.Max Baucus.

According to Berman, Messina’s devotion to Baucus played a major role in the Obama administration’s mishandling of the 2009 health care debate:

The administration gave Baucus and his handpicked “gang of six” senators nearly unlimited time to secretly craft a bill, which proved to be one of its most glaring strategic missteps during the healthcare debate. “Some of the difficulty that healthcare is in today is Max’s fault,” says former Montana Democratic Congressman Pat Williams. “He took too long, he tried to satisfy too many—including people that were going to vote against it from the onset—and he gave the opposition time to regroup. That was a bad political decision on his part, and many people out here believe, rightly or wrongly, that Messina was part of that foot-dragging and vacillation.”

Berman digs in to Messina’s Montana past quite a bit. He writes that with Messina as the enforcer, Baucus’ inner-circle was known as “the Montana mafia” for the way they played hard-ball with Montana’s grass-roots Democratic base. Berman chronicles how shortly after Baucus sailed to reelection in 2002 Messina visited Montana Democratic Party chair Bob Ream and demanded that he fire executive director Brad Martin.

The Baucus camp regarded the state party as too grassroots and insufficiently loyal to Baucus. Ream resisted and his executive board unanimously recommended that Martin be retained. Then Baucus insisted that Ream resign. He refused. When Ream ran for re-election in 2004, Messina tried to find somebody to run against him, but could not.

It’s a lengthy piece but well worth the read.

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.

GOP candidates lining up for 2012

Former Republican Congressman Rick Hill on Monday announced his bid for Montana Governor at a kickoff event in Clancy.

Hill, who served two terms in the U.S. House in the late 1990s before a problem with his eyes kept him from running again in 2000, said revitalizing Montana’s economy tops his agenda.

Hill joins former state Sens. Ken Miller of Laurel and Corey Stapleton of Billings in the race for the GOP nomination for the post currently held by two-term Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer cannot run again in 2012 due to term limits.

In other news, sources told me on Monday that Bozeman businessman Steve Daines, who ran on Republican state Sen. Roy Brown’s gubernatorial ticket in 2008, intends to announce his bid for the U.S. Senate in the coming days.

Daines was traveling in Australia on Monday and unavailable for comment.

According to one Montana GOP insider, Daines is prepared to step aside from the senate race if Rep. Denny Rehberg decides to throw his hat in the ring to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In that scenario Daines would then run for Rehberg’s House seat, the source said.

Rehberg has long been rumored to be gearing up to take on Tester and has been vocal in his criticisms of Montana’s junior senator. According to Politico, Rehberg was spotted exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters just two days after Republicans’ huge showing in last Tuesday’s midterm elections.

CORRECTION: The Politico story I referenced was published in November 2009, not last week as I stated in my post. So the rumors of Rehberg’s alleged 2012 senate have been circulating for at least a year. Regardless, I regret the error.

Montana’s Senior Senator, Democrat Max Baucus, weighed in on subject, saying:

"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.

Obama’s top targeter: “I’m very bullish on Montana” in 2012

Ken Strasma, founder of the microtargeting firm Strategic Telemetry, is the Democrats’ answer to Karl Rove. Strasma and his company provide microtargeting, data analysis, strategic consulting and other services to Democratic candidates.

Basically, Strasma uses a combination of telephone polling and marketing data to develop campaign messages that resonate with swing voters. Strasma was Barack Obama’s national targeting director and played a key role in Obama's success in 2008.

Strasma told Tom Schaller in an interview for FiveThirtyEight.com that Montana is his “number one pick to flip in 2012.”

“I'm very bullish on Montana. It is currently my number one pick to flip in 2012. Energy, land-management and environmental issues are key in Montana and the Dakotas. If, after four years, voters there see that Obama’s policies aren’t the caricatures that Republicans have claimed, we should do quite well.”

Some readers over at FiveThirdyEight weren’t buying Strasma’s analysis. Many readers said Missouri has a much better chance to flip for Obama 2012 than Montana. McCain won Missouri by the thinnest of margins: 49.4 percent to Obama’s 49.3 percent. Montana was a close race, with McCain garnering 49.7 percent and Obama picking up 47.2 percent, but it was a difference of 2.5 percent. Missouri was less than two tenths of a percent.

I found this analysis, by commenter e3323 particularly entertaining:

“…I can not imagine a realistic 2012 scenario where MONTANA makes the difference between winning and losing the whole election.

Like...I cant imagine being up at 2:30AM on November 7th 2012, watching CNN and looking at the magic map with every state in red or blue but Montana and hearing Wolf Blitzer say ‘We still can not make a projection for Montana but with 89 percent of the vote in President Obama trails Newt Gingrich by 1,283 votes, however *zooms in on map* Deer Lodge County, an obama stronghold with a high Native American population, only 76 percent of the vote counted, If these numbers hold up Obama could potentially catch up to Gingrich and win the state and thus the election. Again nether candidate has reached the magic number of 270 but the winner in Montana will be the winner of the election.’”

No i'm sorry...I cant imagine THAT."

Wouldn’t that be something?

e3323 probably has a point. After all, Montana has only three electoral votes to Missouri’s 11. Seems to me the Obama campaign would go after those two tenths of a percent and 11 electoral votes in Missouri before they’d make a hard run at Montana’s 3 electoral votes.

That said, we saw Obama in Montana, what?…three times during last year's campaing? Is his visit to Bozeman next week a sign that he is already taking aim at Montana for 2012? After all, midterm elections are only 452 days away and after that the 2012 presidential race begins.

I wonder if the days of presidential candidates flying over Montana on their way to bigger and better destinations are over. If Obama's 50-state strategy pays off again in 2012, could we be entering an era in which Montana gets to play ball in every presidential election? And what does that mean for Montana in the long run? Discuss...