Tempers flare over “dark money” disclaimer bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Ed Walker: To the bill please.

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

Chairman: Sen. Olson.

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

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

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

Walker: Sen. Olson.

Olson: Mr. Chairman. Follow up?

Walker: Will Sen. Wittich yield?

Wittich: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walker: Will Sen. Wittich yield?

Wittich: Sure.

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

Walker: Sen. Wittich?

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

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

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

Jones: I withdraw my question.

Walker: Sen. Essmann.

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

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?

Lindeen orders “independent investigation” into workplace fundraising allegations

For those of you who missed it, my colleague Eric Newhouse wrote a lengthy piece in Sunday’s Tribune outlining allegations that Walter Schweitzer—the governor’s brother—may have violated campaign and/or ethics laws by improperly soliciting campaign contributions from employees in the State Auditor’s office on state time.

Laura McGee said she was fired as an administrator in the Auditor's Office after she complained to Lindeen that Walter solicited a contribution to help pay down Lindeen's substantial campaign debt and "verbally assaulted" her for sending an e-mail agency-wide.

As most of you who read this blog are probably aware, I wrote my own lengthy piece about Walt Schweitzer for the Missoula Independent a few years back detailing stories of Walter’s alleged political arm-twisting and bullying in the halls of the capitol. Though insiders say Walt left the capitol shortly after the Indy story ran, he has remained very active in Democratic politics. Earlier this year he was tapped by State Auditor Monica Lindeen to serve as her chief deputy.

According to Newhouse’s story, it seems Walt Schweitzer hasn’t shed his reputation as a bully.

“In a formal letter to State Auditor Monica Lindeen, dated July 15, (former employee Laura) McGee complained that Deputy State Auditor Walt Schweitzer "verbally assaulted me," and stated that he solicited campaign funds in the office, a practice prohibited by law.

…

"With the exception of Walt, the working environment here is spectacular, and I do hope that my truthfulness and honesty will not jeopardize my employment," McGee wrote in the letter.

...

"In February, Walt came to my office and said he was raising money for your campaign debt," McGee wrote Lindeen. "He said, you know, she did offer you this position ... I said, yes, and for that I am grateful. He then asked if I would write a check out to your campaign. So I took my checkbook out and wrote a check."

...

McGee said another fund solicitation occurred later when Schweitzer came to the office and passed out invitations to a fundraiser — dubbed the Rehberg Retirement Party — at Schweitzer's home June 25 for Dennis McDonald, a Democrat running for Rep. Denny Rehberg's seat in Congress. The "suggested donation" was $25.

"I saw him passing out invites and accepting donations outside Dave Van Nice's (office) door," McGee said in an interview last week. "I was passing by and saw and overheard it. Then when I got to my office, Walt approached Russ Wheat (an attorney for the auditor's office). I actually rode to the event with Russ."

Today Lindeen announced that she ordered “an independent review” to ensure that her staff followed state ethics policies and laws. Here's the full press release that just arrived in my mailbox:

Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance Monica J. Lindeen announced today that she has ordered an independent review to ensure that her staff followed state ethics policies and laws. She also stated that the federal Hatch Act is not an issue with regard to the allegations made by a former employee because it does not apply to her agency.

Last week a former employee asserted to the press that certain members of her staff may have violated the law by allegedly soliciting campaign contributions while at work. When Lindeen learned of the allegations, she ordered an internal investigation. “The agency conducted an earlier investigation, the facts of which differ from what a former employee has apparently said in the press,” said agency spokesperson, Jessica Rhoades.

It was also determined during the investigation that the Hatch Act does not apply to the agency because it receives no federal funding. Recent media reports based upon the former employee’s allegations suggesting that over 50% of the agency’s funding comes from federal funds are incorrect.

Rhoades said that in light of renewed allegations made in the press, Commissioner Lindeen has ordered an outside investigator to ensure that all internal policies and state laws were followed.

“In an abundance of caution, Commissioner Lindeen has ordered an outside independent investigator to perform a comprehensive review of the matter and ensure that all laws and policies were followed. Commissioner Lindeen also wants to take this opportunity to conduct a review of agency policies and procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with state ethics laws,” said Rhoades.

“This office works every day to protect Montana consumers. We work with state, county, and federal law enforcement officials as well as county attorneys and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said Lindeen. “The employees of this agency have the utmost respect for the law, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that the actions and policies of this office advance and demonstrate that respect.”

Prior to 2007 the agency served as a pass-through or conduit for the Federal Forest Reserve Fund, monies from which were allocated to local counties. Those funds were redirected to the state Department of Administration by the Montana legislature in 2007 and were deposited there beginning July 1, 2007. No part of the agencies budget has consisted of federal funding, pass through or otherwise, since 2007. No part of the pass-through dollars funded any agency staff salary.

You can read more in Wednesday’s Tribune.