Analysis: Walsh “incumbency” not much of an advantage

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

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

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

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

As the Gazette correctly points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is whether the plan will backfire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schweitzer did not answer a call seeking comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-way race for chair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Proxy battle’ in race for vice chair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Daines make an announcement?

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

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

It’s (almost) official: Champ Edmunds to challenge Baucus in 2014

The first rumors of a GOP challenger to powerful incumbent Montana Sen. Max Baucus started swirling last month.

Chuck Johnson reported in January that second-term state Rep. Champ Edmunds, R-Missoula, was considering throwing his hat in the ring. At the time, Edmunds was coy but noncommittal about his interest in the race:

“We’re doing some exploratory work, but right now, we need to focus on this session,” Edmunds said in January. “We’re not running. We’re exploring.“ 

Well apparently Edmunds doing a bit more than exploring.

In an email blast sent late last night or early this morning with the subject line “Getting Washington Back to Basics...,” Edmunds effectively announced his intentions to run for the U.S. Senate (emphases not mine):

Dear Conservative,

You may have read that Karl Rove is trying to suppress grass roots conservatives in the next election cycle. But there's good news! Here in Montana, we have a choice between a party establishment-backed candidate, and an authentic conservative.

My name is Champ Edmunds, and I would like to be your next U.S. Senator.

I have not officially announced because I am working on behalf of my constituents in the Montana House, but conservatives must start working now if we are going to win in 2014!

Today, the Washington Post called me "very conservative across the board," and said the party establishment would prefer a different candidate for U.S. Senate.

I bet they would! No way am I going to go along to get along. No way am I going to cave on issues like raising taxes. No way am I going to let the system change me.

That makes me the kind of candidate the establishment fears.

If you want to support a real conservative for U.S. Senate, please go to www.champforsenate.com and make the most generous donation you can. Even $5 will help. Together we can get Washington D.C. back to basics!

Then, go have a look at what the Washington Post said. They meant it as an insult, but I consider it very flattering. "Very conservative across the board" -- that's me.

Sincerely,

Champ Edmunds

P.S. This Washington Post article just came out today! We have to respond immediately. Please go to www.champforsenate.com and make any financial contribution that will fit within your budget.

P.S.S. Also, join me on facebook!

A Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog on Thursday listed Edmunds among the “Six Senate candidates who could foment GOP civil war.” According to The Fix:

The least-known name on this list is one to keep an eye on. The GOP field to face Sen. Max Baucus (D) is expected to be a crowded one, and Edmunds has already signaled his interest and has reserved the champforsenate.com Web domain, where he’s accepting donations. He’s very conservative across the board, including spearheading efforts on illegal immigration, fighting against same-day voter registration and criticizing a Justice Department probe into sexual assault allegations in Missoula. Edmunds is the kind of outspoken conservative who is happy to take on basically any conservative cause and happy to speak bluntly about it. That’s not terribly helpful in a Senate campaign, though. Establishment Republicans would much prefer someone like former state senator Corey Stapleton, who announced his campaign this week.

Former Billings Republican legislator Corey Stapleton, who finished second in the 2012 GOP gubernatorial primary, announced Wednesday that he is seeking the Republican nomination for Senate.

In a one-minute internet ad announcing his candidacy Stapleton said he has the “leadership” and “integrity” to represent Montana in the U.S. Senate.

“I want to make life better for Montanans — for all of us, our kids, our grandkids. And that’s why I’m running for the United States Senate.”

Think its a little early for a 2014 election cycle? Think again folks. We’re already off to the races.

A mysterious “issue advocacy” group called “Stronger Montana Fund” has already begun running TV ads supporting Baucus.

Not that Baucus needs a lot of outside help. The powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committee already had $3.6 million in cash on hand at the end of the last reporting period. By the time Baucus’ campaign closes the books on the first quarter of 2013 on March 31 his campaign will likely have close to $4.3 million or more in his war chest.

Republicans are going to have a big hill to climb to unseat Baucus, who hasn’t had a legitimate GOP challenge since1996, when Denny Rehberg came within 5 percentage points.

Some observers think the only real threat to Baucus would come from a Democratic primary challenger. Former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s name has been bandied about for years, but Schweitzer insists he’s not interested. 

Last fall I asked Schweitzer about whether he’d consider challenging Baucus, to which Schweitzer responded:

“I can't even imagine being in a body that spends all of its time masquerading like they're actually doing something.”

Whether we like it or not, the 2014 election cycle is already upon us.

Buckle up.