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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor, parties, lawmakers react to remarkable chain of events in the MT Senate

Gov. Steve Bullock addresses the media, April 5, 2013

Here are the complete press releases and statements issued by lawmakers and political parties in the wake of Friday’s actions on the Senate as Democrats attempted to prevent the passage of two referendum proposals aimed at altering Montana elections. I’ve made edits, changes or alterations to emphases.

4:53 P.M., Senate Democrats issue statement

Democrats stand up for transparency in Montanans’ democracy

Helena, MONT. – The Republican leaders of the legislature today abused the legislative process to push through irresponsible attacks on Montanans’ constitutional right to vote. 

Led by Sen. Jeff Essmann, the Republican leaders made good their promise uncovered in secret emails released earlier this year: pass the buck through the referendum process so they don’t have to be held accountable on allegedly controversial issues, like same day voter registration. 

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Democratic leader Jon Sesso.  “Montanans deserve a democracy that works, but abusing the rules and shutting Montanans out of the ballot box is against everything our constituents value.” 

Republican leadership forced the legislative process on yet another referendum despite points of order called by Democrats, ignoring vociferous protests from the floor as well as Montanans in the gallery.

“Someone had to stand up for Montanans' right to vote,” said Sesso, “Republican legislators want to make it harder to vote, and they showed today they’re willing to use every legislative tactic to do that.”

SB 405 would put on the ballot an initiative to eliminate same-day voter registration. Republicans felt they would stand up for Montanans' right to participate in our democracy, and that includes allowing Montanans to register and vote on election day.

“We will hold them accountable. That's what Montanans want us to do, especially when they are trying to take away our cherished right to vote,” said Sesso.

###

Montana GOP response:

Democrat mob rule tactics fail to intimidate

Today at the Montana Legislature, chaos erupted when Democrats tried to bring the process of self-government to a grinding halt.

In danger of losing a crucial vote, Democrats in the Montana State Senate arranged for one of their Senators to disappear, so they could use a parliamentary tactic called "Call of the Senate." That tactic would have stopped all business of the Legislature until the "missing" Senator could be found.

If business had stopped, a number of good Republican bills would have failed to meet a crucial deadline, and would have died.

When the "missing Senator" was exposed as a ruse, and Republican Senate President Jeff Essmann went to proceed with business, Democrats shouted and pounded on their desks, trying to drown out any opposition to their views. They packed the Senate gallery with lobbyists and partisan operatives to shout and try to silence the majority of Senators who were doing the job they were sent their to do. Republican Senators refused to allow the mob rule tactics to intimidate them, and continued doing the people's business.

The Montana Republican Party released a statement on Democrat efforts to bring the legislature to a halt.

Bowen Greenwood, Executive Director of the Montana Republican Party, said, “Today Democrats in the Montana State Senate reached a new low. Trying to stop a crucial vote from happening, they shouted and pounded their desks and packed the gallery with partisan allies trying to drown out their opposition. Thank God mob rule did not prevail. Senate President Jeff Essmann did the right thing by refusing to be intimidated by anti-democratic, mob rule tactics.”

Senate GOP responds:

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich Regarding Democrat Gamesmanship the Montana Senate

(Helena, MT) -- In response to today’s obstructionist actions by Democratic members of the Montana Senate, Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich  has released the following statement:
“The actions by the Democrat members of the Senate were unprecedented. They intentionally mislead Montanans and the Senate about a member’s absence to stage a piece of political theatre.
Today’s political gamesmanship was designed to try and deny Montanans the right to vote on two issues that would improve the integrity of our elections. Republicans worked diligently to conduct the people’s business.
Montanans expect their elected officials to work with one another. I expect all members of the Senate come together and honor our commitment to work for Montanans,” said Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich.
###

Gov. Steve Bullock addresses the media at 5:20 p.m.:

Readout of Governor Bullock’s Statement

Montana State Capitol – April 5, 2013

Today was a disappointing day for the State of Montana.

Since I was sworn in as your Governor, I’ve sought to change the tone in this building.  In my State of the State address, I asked the legislature to “act in a manner that we’re not ashamed to have our kids watching, because they are.” I won’t let my kids watch the news tonight.

I’m saddened by what we saw today – it’s worse than Washington, DC.  I’m not embarrassed by men and women demanding a right to speak – I’m disappointed by those who denied it.

Today, we saw elected Senators, people who have been entrusted by their neighbors to represent them, prevented from speaking – because they were trying to speak for those who are too often silenced. 

The Senate sought to eliminate the right to vote for senior citizens who may have moved into an assisted living facility.  Active duty military members who were overseas during voter registration.  Students, who simply moved down the hall of their dormitory.

Every week I meet with the House and Senate pages.  I tell them that there is no more important right, than the one to vote.  Because every vote matters.  I encourage them to stand up and be counted.  To stand up and make their voices heard.

The hyper-partisan nature of the Senate leadership is interfering with our good government.

When our ancestors passed the Corrupt Practices Act – a measure that sought to ensure some degree of confidence in our elected leaders – they weren’t acting as Democrats or Republicans.  They were acting as Montanans.

We live in a democracy – the greatest on earth.  A Democracy where a majority rules, but a minority has a voice and a right to be heard. 

The minority has rights – not only rights that were adopted by this legislature, but the right to be respected.  Respect is a Montana value - one that should be inherent in all of us who call this place our home.

I strongly encourage Sen. Essmann to reconsider every vote made today.  And I encourage the leaders in this body – not just those elected to leadership positions – to stand up and start acting in a way that would make our ancestors and our kids proud.

We have a lot of work to do tonight.  I’m sure I’ll see everyone tomorrow.

-30-

Montana Democratic Party spokesman Chris Saeger issues statement at 5:44 p.m.:

"The same extremist Republican leaders of the legislature who broke the rules to silence the minority today are the same ones who were exposed for plotting against moderates in secret emails." 

"Sen. Essmann won't stop silencing dissent until he gets all the way to the ballot box.  Republican party bosses in the legislature have made it clear that their own political gain is more important than Montanans' right to have their say in our democracy."

"We're proud that Montana Democrats stood up to make sure the everyone in our democracy plays by the same rules, and has the same right to access the ballot box."

That’s all for now. Be sure to check out the Great Falls Tribune for all the latest on this fascinating turn of events at the Montana Legislature.

Did the House Republican Majority Leader send a “kill list” to the Senate?

I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of a rumor swirling this week that House Majority Leader Gordon Vance, R-Bozeman, prepared a “kill list” that he sent over to Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich, R-Bozeman.

According to the rumor, after transmittal Vance prepared a list of bills which passed in the House that he wanted Republican committee chairs to kill in the Senate.

Sources who claimed to have seen the purported kill list said it was one-page long and was made of up Republican and Democrat bills, including some measures that passed the full House by wide bi-partisan margins.

In an interview Wednesday Vance denied the existence of such a list.

“What I did do was have conversations with fellow legislators,” Vance said Wednesday when asked about the list. “Did I have more than one conversation, probably over beers, with friends of mine in the other house, sure I did.”

Vance said there was “nothing formal” and that he acted as an individual member of the House, not as the Republican House Majority Leader.

But Vance’s initial explanation conflicted with what Wittich told me later that day.

In an interview Wednesday afternoon Wittich said he received a printed list from “House leadership” that asked Senate leaders to “take a close look” at certain bills. Wittich said there approximately 25 bills on the list that covered a wide-variety of issues. Wittich said he probably still had the list but was not able to produce it for me at the time.

Wittich said it’s not uncommon for leaders from one house to ask caucus members in the other house to “pay close attention” to certain measures.

“A lot of times you don’t understand the importance of a bill when it fist comes across your desk,” Wittich said.

Wittich said he passed the list on to Republican committee chairs.

Sen. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, chairman of the Senate Local Government Committee, said he received a note from Wittich early last week asking him to “take no action” on a HB245, a bill by Rep. Champ Edmunds, R-Missoula, that authorizes counties to dedicate park land.

“I had never seen this before,” Buttrey said of the Wittich’s note. “My understanding was it came over from House leadership so I went over and asked House folks why they had trouble with the bill, but nobody seemed to know.”

Sen. Jon Sonju, chairman of the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs Committee acknowledged that he also received a list but directed comments to Wittich.

“I can tell you that we are not holding on to any bills in my committee,” Sonju said.

Wittich said after he reviewed many of the bills on the list he wasn’t sure why the House leaders had concerns about those specific measures. Wittich said also said he didn’t know why Vance would deny preparing the list.

“There’s nothing wrong with saying ‘this is something that needs more careful review,’” Wittich said. “It’s hard to process hundreds of bills.”

When I followed up with Vance today he said his comments to me on Wednesday were a “specific answer to a specific question.” Vance said in general both caucuses create lists all the time.

“If you want to get general about it, we absolutely create all kinds of lists,” Vance said. “When thousands of bills are floating it’s hard to do it any other way.”

Vance said the existence of a “kill list” – as it was described to me by Republicans in the House and Senate who had knowledge of it – was “an unfounded rumor.”

“There are all kinds of things flying around, none of which are true,” Vance said.

Bills stacking up in the Senate

Bills that passed in the House and in Senate committees are stacking up on Republican Senate President Jeff Essmann’s desk.

In some cases the bills that passed the House aren’t being assigned to Senate committees. In other cases bills that passed Senate committees aren’t being scheduled for 2nd reading.

Of the 30 bills awaiting second reading in the Senate, a third passed in committee more than a week ago. All of those bills  passed unanimously or with bi-partisan support.

The word in the Capitol is that Democrats may raise the issue on the Senate floor today.

But it isn’t just Democrat bills getting hung up in the process.

As of the start of the week Essmann had held-off on assigning to committees more than 20 bills sponsored by House Republicans.

Many of those passed the Republican-controlled House by large margins – and about half were transmitted weeks ago – yet Essmann held-off on assigning them committees where they could be scheduled for hearings. The sponsors of many of those bills also happened to be Republicans who voted against HB315, Republican Rep. Austin Knudsen’s charter school bill that unexpectedly died on 3rd reading in the House last month.

Rep. Rob Cook, R-Conrad , is one of the Republican lawmakers who had bills on Essmann’s desk.

“It certainly appears from the feedback of the Senate leadership and a quick review of the bills that are presently pocket vetoed that the House vote on the charter school bill is the causal link,” Cook said.

The charter school bill was a priority for conservative Republicans in the House and Senate, and as Mike Dennison of Lee Newspapers recently pointed out, was backed by wealthy special interest groups including the Montana Family Foundation and Bozeman technology mogul Greg  Gianforte, former CEO of RightNow Technologies.

Gianforte is also a major Republican donor to Republican campaigns and causes.

Rep. Christy Clark, R-Choteau, was one of the Republicans who switched her vote on third reading to help kill HB315 on the House floor. Clark said Wednesday that she met with Essmann earlier this week to ask him why HB464, a measure that revises the state’s prevailing wage laws that passed the House 89-9, had not been referred to a committee.

“He said specifically that he wanted to express his disappointment in my vote on the charter school bill,” Clark said. “He was clear that he wanted to visit with me before he scheduled the bill.”

Republicans Roger Hagan, of Great Falls, and Steve Gibson, of East Helena – also “no” votes on the charter school bill – said they, too, met with Essmann individually to inquire about bills that weren’t being referred to committees.

Hagan and Gibson declined to comment on the specifics of their conversations with Essmann, but both men said Essmann expressed a desire to visit with them before scheduling their bills.

Essmann said Wednesday that he held the bills in order to encourage Republican sponsors who voted against the charter school bill to talk to him about their votes. Essmann said the practice of holding on to a bill in order to encourage a conversation “is something that has gone on forever.”

“I was curious what was going on with those votes on that charter school bill,” Essmann said. “It seemed curious.”

Essmann said he was concerned about the appearance of coordination between some House Republicans and Democrats and public education lobbyists who opposed the charter school bill. He pointed to a Jan. 27  letter Rep. Rob Cook, R-Conrad, wrote that was signed by six Republicans and six Democrats from the House and Senate and four public school lobbyists.

The letter was sent to the Districting and Apportionment Commission and urged the commission to assign a Senate district to Sen. Llew Jones, R-Conrad. The commission’s plan left Jones without a Senate district he could run in in 2014. Essmann said the redistricting commission made a change to their plan that “threatens Republican control of the Montana Legislature.”

Jones is the architect of the major school funding bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support after a lengthy floor debate that pitted Democrats and moderate Republicans against conservatives in Republican leadership. Jones’ bill is now in the House where it is awaiting committee assignment.

Essmann said he didn’t know if there was coordination between the letter and the votes on the charter school bill.

“That’s why I wanted to have the conversations,” Essmann said.

Essmann said once House lawmakers spoke to him about the issue he assigned their bills to committee. He said not all of the people who voted against charter schools have come to talk to him.

“I don’t believe in retribution, I believe in conversation,” Essmann said.

Stay tuned for more. I’ll write later about the rumored “kill list” that a Republican leader in the House purportedly sent to the Senate.

‘Dark Money’ shots continue to ricochet in the Capitol

The “dark money” campaign finance issue reemerged in the hallways of the Capitol this week with shots fired at both Republicans and Democrats.

On Monday Garrett Lenderman  of the conservative Media Trackers blog reported that Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock’s campaign “held several conference calls” with Hilltop Public Solutions during his 2012 election bid.

Hilltop is a Democrat-friendly consulting firm that uses donations from prominent left-leaning organizations to fund ads promoting Democratic candidates for office. Barrett Kaiser, a former aide to Sen. Max Baucus, is a partner at Hilltop and runs it’s the Billings office.

As Kim Barker of ProPublica reported earlier this year:

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.

Aaron Murphy, who spent seven years as a top aid to Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, most recently as his campaign spokesman, joined Hilltop in January.

Lenderman reported that Bullock’s campaign listed expenditures for conference calls on June 20, July 25, and October 20, 2012, as well as payment for travel expenses on February 16 and October 20, 2012, towards S&B Public Solutions, which according to business registration records with the District of Columbia, is the official registered name for Hilltop Public Solutions.

Shortly after those conference calls too place outside groups paid Hilltop to help them run ads supporting Bullock, the report claims:

Six days after Bullock’s October conference call with Hilltop, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana (PPAMT) , which received funding from a (George) Soros-affiliated super PAC, paid Hilltop to manage an independent expenditure campaign in support of then-candidate Bullock.

PPAMT’s payments to Hilltop after the call, listed between October 26 and November 7, included $13,736 in salaries for paid canvassers and $6,000 in “management fees.”

The report doesn’t make any specific allegations of campaign finance violations, but Lenderman pointed out that Bullock criticized the role of dark money in Montana elections during his State of the State Address in late January.

“We have seen the rise of so-called ‘dark money’ groups that target candidates, yet refuse to tell the voting public who they really are and what they really represent,” Bullock said. “They hide behind made-up-names and made-up newspapers. They operate out of P.O. boxes or Washington, D.C. office buildings.”

You can read Lenderman’s full report here.

Kevin O’Brien, who ran Bullock’s 2012 campaign and now serves as Bullock’s deputy chief of staff, issued the following statement when asked about the Media Trackers report:

“We don’t comment every time a dark-money group, masquerading as a media outlet, levels unsubstantiated and misleading accusations.”

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Media Trackers is tied to the Tea Party-backed group American Majority and is itself funded by anonymous conservative donors. On its website Media Trackers touts itself as a "conservative nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government across Montana through cutting-edge research and communications initiatives."

‘Wanted’ posters and websites

Things got even more interesting on Wednesday when 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.

The only problem is the anonymous creators printed the wrong URL on the bottom of their flyer. The leafleters apparently meant to print www.ATPexposed.COM.

Someone was quick to capitalize on the mistake by anonymously snapping up the domain for ATPexposed.org late Wednesday night and redirecting it to the website for the Stronger Montana Fund, another mysterious  "issue advocacy organization” that has already began running television ads on behalf of Baucus.

I’ll address more details about the ATPExposed.com website in a follow-up post.

In this brave new world of dark money, anonymous political attacks and cyber shenanigans we’re going to see a lot more of this kind of stuff.

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?

Schweitzer’s “VETO Chicken”

Absentee ballots hit the mail today marking the home stretch of the 2012 election season, and term-limited Gov. Brian Schweitzer reminded voters what is at stake in the 2013 Legislative session.

Not one to shy away from the limelight, Schweitzer, a Democrat, continues to thump his chest over last session's record 79 vetoes of Republican bills with a tweet today featuring a photo of "veto chicken."

Schweitzer, who has done little to temper speculation that he plans to seek a higher office after his gubernatorial term expires, was was the keynote speaker at NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 18th annual “Chicago Power of Choice Luncheon,” at the downtown Standard Club. According to Schweitzer’s spokeswoman, that’s where the “Veto Chicken” was served.

Schweitzer has built a national following among some members of his party who admire his no-holds-barred approach to taking on Republicans in the Capitol. From calling the GOP-controlled Legislature “bat crap crazy” or using a red-hot branding iron to “veto” Republican bills in 2011,  Schweitzer has never backed down from a battle with his Republican rivals.

With Republicans looking to hold solid majorities in the next Legislative session, many of the same bills Schweitzer vetoed in 2011 will no-doubt land on the next governor’s desk in 2013.

Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock has already said he would veto any right-to-work bill that crosses his desk. Bullock has also invoked Schweitzer’s “bat crap crazy” remark, saying any bills to allow spear hunting, or calls for secession from the union or or measures aimed at imposing a gold standard in the state will likely meet his veto pen. However, Bullock recently told students at Great Falls High that since he’s a lawyer he would probably use a fountain pen, rather than a branding iron, to do the deed.

Meanwhile, Rick Hill, a Republican, has said he would allow some of the bills that Schweitzer vetoed to become law. Hill said he supports right-to-work legislation and at a debate in Helena the former Montana congressman said he supports the ballot measure that would change Montana law to require women under 18 to get parental consent before having an abortion, a bill Schweitzer vetoed in 2011.

If the measure fails at the ballot box come November, chances are that proposal will still become law if Hill is elected governor.

Schweitzer’s “veto chicken” tweet, as odd as it was, serves as a reminder that the next governor will probably see many of the same bills he vetoed in 2011.  Some voters will no-doubt have that in mind when they fill out their ballots this fall.

The perennial “robo-call”

Today as I was standing in line at my favorite lunch joint when my cell phone rang. The number that popped up was that of GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Miller.

If you read today’s profile of Miller you might recognize the number because it is the same number Miller asked all Montanans to use to reach him on the campaign trail.

I answered the phone expecting Miller might want to chat about the recent article, but he didn’t even give me a chance to say hello. Actually, it wasn’t really Ken on the other line. It was a recorded version of Ken:

“Hi. This is Ken Miller. If you haven't heard I'm a grassroots tea party-endorsed conservative running for governor of Montana. The Miller momentum is growing like wildfire across this state and with my running mate Bill Gallagher, we are winning straw polls everywhere. You may have seen our green and blue signs in your area. I hope we can count on your vote for Miller-Gallagher by June 5th. I'd love to hear from you today. I'm Ken Miller. Feel free to call me on my personal cell 670-8318. This call is paid for by Miller for Governor box 325 Lower Montana.”

Commissioner of Political Practices Jim Murry, who on Thursday denied Miller’s request to dismiss an ethics case filed by Miller’s former chief fundraiser, said he also received Miller’s robo-call. Murry said his office has already received several complaints, which he turned over to Lewis & Clark County Attorney Leo Gallagher.

In addition to Miller, people have recently reported receiving robo-calls from Montana Conservation Voters urging recipients to vote for Democratic Attorney General candidate Pam Bucy and Democratic gubernatorial candidate and current Attorney General Steve Bullock.

It seems like I write at least one story each election cycle about candidate or campaign using robo-calls. Candidates from both parties like to complain about how their opponent’s use of robo-calls is “illegal” and “unethical.” That might be true.

But what’s also true is candidates from both major parties use them every year.

In 2008 Republicans griped that the Montana Democratic Party was using robo-calls to support Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Denise Juneau. (sorry, the article is archived so no link).

Then-MDP spokesman Kevin O’Brien (now Bullock’s campaign spokesperson), made no apologies for the Juneau call in 2008.

"We believe that free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and we are going to do everything that we can to make sure that every voter has the opportunity and ability to vote," O'Brien said Wednesday in 2008.

Last year Bullock sided with attorneys general from across the country in opposing a federal law that would have made it more difficult for states to enforce bans against robo-calls to cell phones, but he’s apparently benefitting from MCV’s during this election season.

Gallagher said his office received several robo-call complaints Thursday. Gallagher has long been sick of the calls, which he says are illegal.

“What I've done in the past is I’ve written a letter to each party and advised them that robo-calls violate 45-8-216 and I asked them to please advise anybody who asks them that they are a violation of state law and if they do it they'll be charged,” Gallagher said.

However so far no county attorney has ever brought charges against a political candidate or third-party group for making robo-calls in Montana.

So why doesn’t anyone enforce the law against robo-calls? Here’s how one long-time campaign organizer explained it to me:

“I'm told the legislative language directly contradicts 1st Amendment precedents. Nobody will bring suit or levy fines because there is too much precedent to overturn, and losing in court would effectively tell everyone it's ok to do autodials, which would remove any hesitation the legislative language might give candidates.”

For his part, Miller said he and his campaign advisors believe the calls going out this week are legal.

“We've done a lot of research on it, and it is our opinion and it is the opinion of many others” that robo-calls are legal, Miller said.

“We felt that we could be at a disadvantage to our competition if we did not use them, and we wanted to be a step above so we made sure that the caller ID has my personal cell phone number on it,” Miller said.

If you ask me, until a county attorney brings charges and the matter is settled in court once and for all, robo-calls during election season will be as perennial as daffodils, green grass, and apple blossoms blowing on a warm spring breeze…just not as pleasant.

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."

Livingston actress/activist Margot Kidder arrested at the White House

Actress and activist Margot Kidder, of Livingston, was reportedly arrested on the steps of the White House today. Kidder, dressed in black in the photo above, was in Washington as part of a two-week protest to push the Obama Administration to deny Canadian oil giant TransCanada’s permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Kidder is active in the group Montana Women For. She was photographed holding a sign that said “Montana Women For An Oil Free Future.” 

Kidder, best known for her role as Lois Lane in the Superman movies, was arrested fellow actress Tantoo Cardinal (in orange), who starred in Legends of the Fall and Dances with Wolves.

According to the Canadian Press:

Canadian actress Margot Kidder was among the latest slate of environmentalists to be arrested outside the White House on Tuesday, handcuffed and sent to jail on the fourth day of a two-week civil disobedience campaign against TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.

Kidder, born in Yellowknife but now living in Montana as an American citizen, was arrested alongside fellow Canadian actress Tantoo Cardinal by U.S. Park Police for refusing to vacate a White House sidewalk.

Just as dozens of others have since Saturday, Kidder and Cardinal were charged with failing to obey an order governing protests on the sidewalk, police said. They were expected to be released later Tuesday.

"We're the first state the pipeline goes through," Kidder, 62, best known for playing Lois Lane in four "Superman" movies, said before her arrest.

She marched from Lafayette Square, directly north of the White House, to the sidewalk lining the northern edge of the presidential residence along with three other women who described themselves as "Montana grandmothers."

"It's bound to leak, there's no way it's not going to ... they always assure us these things are safe, and they never are safe," Kidder said.

AP: DOT head resigns over daughter's job

Associated Press statehouse correspondent Matt Gouras is reporting Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked MDT Director Jim Lynch to resign after discovering that Lynch’s daughter was hired by the department.

From the AP article:

Schweitzer confirmed to The Associated Press on Friday that the abrupt resignation was over concerns that the hiring of Lynch's daughter, Emily Rask, could violate state nepotism laws. Rask holds a post in the agency's human resources department.

"I became aware that he had hired his daughter. I spoke to him about it and said, 'Jim, this is a clear violation of the nepotism law,'" Schweitzer said. "On that basis, I asked for his resignation. He had an interpretation that it is acceptable. I said, 'Look, this is not acceptable.'"

Lynch had a somewhat different explanation of events:

Lynch told the AP on Friday that he is the one who offered his resignation. He also said that both he and Schweitzer agreed the hiring did not amount to nepotism under the state law.

---

Lynch said he did not get personally involved in the hiring that took place about four years ago, and he said he made sure it was all done correctly.

---

Lynch said he was surprised the hiring became an issue after such a long time. He said he stayed out of the decision-making process, and said his daughter was hired on merit in a normal hiring process.

"When I heard that she was applying, I reviewed it with the legal department and human resources and they said it was acceptable for her to apply for the job," Lynch said. "Quite frankly, that was the end of it for me.

"I don't think there is anything wrong with what we did, we followed the process."

MDT Director Jim Lynch resigns

Montana Department of Transportation Director Jim Lynch abruptly resigned Thursday after 6 1/2 years as head of the agency.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer appointed Lynch shortly after taking office in January 2005.

Lynch said he gave his resignation letter to Schweitzer Thursday morning. The three-sentence letter said little, only that Lynch decided to resign to "pursue other opportunities."

Schweitzer appointed the department's chief legal counsel, Tim Reardon, to take over as director effective immediately.

"The time was always going to come," Lynch said in an interview Thursday. "When you work for the governor there always comes that time when you can leave, and when it is a good time to leave."

Lynch said he wasn't able to make plans for life after his term as director while still serving in that role.

"There were a lot of questions of me while I was director about what I was going to do next. You can't answer those, and you can talk about them, and you can't plan them while you're still a state employee," Lynch said.

Lynch, a former Kalispell businessman, is rumored to be considering a run for governor. Lynch didn't close the door on that possibility.

"I think this gives me an opportunity to evaluate (a possible gubernatorial campaign) and evaluate what opportunities are out there both in the public and private sector," Lynch said. "I'm just going to take a deep breath and sit back and take my time. I'm not in a hurry to make any decisions one way or the other."

In an e-mail press release announcing the resignation Schweitzer thanked Lynch for his "service and commitment to the state and the people of Montana."

“I wish him well as he moves back to the private sector," Schweitzer said. "Jim was always one of the first people on the scene to any road incident; he was always willing to lend a hand in our towns and communities with snow removal or gravel roads and was a great advocate for highway safety.”

Schweitzer did not comment on why Lynch resigned.

MDT has come under scrutiny over the past year for the agency's handling of ExxonMobil's controversial proposal to haul hundreds of massive Korean-built tar sands processing modules from Lewistown, Idaho, along the Rocky Mountain Front and on to the Kearl oil fields in northern Alberta.

Lynch told the Interim Revenue and Transportation Committee in a 2009 hearing that the company was proposing a "permanent high and wide corridor" across the state to service the Canadian tar sands. Lynch later backed off that statement saying that current project is a one-time only proposal.

Critics of the project say MDT failed to adequately study the potential cultural, environmental and economic impacts of such a project.

Last month District Judge Ray Dayton of Anaconda upheld a request by Missoula County and three conservation groups to stop Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil from transporting the megaloads through the state.

Lynch said the Kearl Module Transportation Project had nothing to do with his decision to resign.

"That's what's nice about Montana, we have the (Montana Environmental Policy Act) process in place to deal with these kinds of projects," Lynch said. "That issue will continued to be played out and it won't be over anytime soon, but that's just one of many aspects that we deal with at MDT."

Lynch said this is a "great time" for him to leave the department.

"There was always going to have to be a time that I have to walk away," Lynch said. "We're delivering a great program. We're sound, we have a fund balance in our program and a great staff at MDT that work hard for the people of Montana."

Reardon, an Anaconda native, has been MDT's chief legal counsel since June 1994.

Gov. Ted Schwinden in 1981 appointed Reardon to serve as a workers' compensation judge, a position he held for 10 years. Prior to that appointment Reardon worked as an attorney in the division of workers compensation and worked in the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. He received his bachelor’s degree from Carroll College and his juris doctorate from the University of Montana.

Reardon will continue to make $99,984, the same salary he is currently making. Reardon is married and has four kids and four grandkids.

“I am honored to have Tim on the team as the director of the Department of Transportation,” Schweitzer said. “I have every confidence in his ability and know he will serve the people of Montana well.”

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.

Thoughts on the ‘End Game’

The arrival of April means we’re heading into the final furious weeks of the 2011 Legislature.

While this session has already been about as contentious as anyone could imagine, I suspect the final weeks could turn the dial up even more as majority Republicans begin to implement whatever strategy they have for getting their major budget and policy priorities past Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s “veto brand.”

There are plenty of rumors about the GOP strategy floating around the Capitol these days. One is that Republican leadership will try to get the budget bill out of conference committee early next week and get it to the governor’s desk by Friday, April 8. At that point, so the rumor goes, the Legislature will temporarily recess until after the governor either signs or vetoes House Bill 2. That would allow them to bank legislative days in the event that Schweitzer vetoes the bill. That way they could reconvene and address HB2 without having to come back for a special session, thus facing the wrath of voters whose patience for lawmaking grows thinner as the days grow longer.

But the rumored recess doesn’t necessarily solve the Legislature’s problem with the governor. Sooner or later they have to make a deal with the the lame duck with the veto pen.

And that brings me to the point of this post.

Republicans have taken a hard-line on the budget and other policy priorities. Still riding high on the “mandate” they say voters handed them in November to cut government spending. So far they don’t seem willing to back down and acquiesce to Schweitzer’s demand that they fully fund his human services and education budgets.

But does a body of 150 individual voices have the juice or experience or political savvy to beat Schweitzer at a game he has mastered?

I had a lengthy conversation with a Capitol insider and trusted source about the looming battle. It was a background conversation and not for attribution. But with the source’s permission, I thought I’d share some of the insight on Lowdown.  I can’t tell you the source’s name, but I can tell you this source has broad legislative experience and a background in politics. I think the analysis is sound, but since you don’t know the source you should take what follows with a grain of salt, of course…

Lowdown: Are the Republicans betting that they have public opinion on their side when it comes down to a budget battle with the governor?

Anonapundit: The bottom-line problem any legislative body has when they find themselves at odds with a governor—either on policy, politics, public relations, or a healthy mix of all three—is that it is impossible for a consensus to rise above the din of 150+ policy makers to challenge an individual voice who has staff in tow, a disciplined spokesperson, and typically an entire executive branch of career employees who must, at the very least, give a bold public face to the policy agenda of the governor. This is the institutional disadvantage of the legislative branch nationally, with public opinion polls always showing a legislature well below their counterpart governor regardless of party affiliation (save for a major scandal at the Blagojevich level). (Republican Gov.) Scott Walker in Wisconsin might yet prove to be a new paradigm, but overall this principle holds. 

Lowdown: Given that paradigm, how do you handicap these particular sparring partners: The GOP-Controlled Legislature and the powerful Democratic Governor?

Anonapundit: Regardless of one's take on Brian Schweitzer as Montana Governor, only his most ardent detractors would argue that he is not a strong governor. This is not a policy position or a scorecard on the administration's record, but rather a reflection that he is always on offense and has a a finger on the pulse of both state and national public opinion. Add to this the fact that Schweitzer is heading into the second half of a decade in this gig—with most of key staff and department heads in place—and you have a comfort level with process and policy that the legislature simply cannot match. On the surface the numbers from the election would seem daunting: 68-32 in the House, and as a special affront, a Republican representative in Butte, America of all places! The somewhat chagrined chief executive of the federal government called his much lesser loss a "shellacking." Yet the Governor has negotiated as though he has all the cards, with it remaining to be seen if this is bluff, buster, confidence, or a end game plan that is well thought out.

Lowdown: So what about 150 lawmakers occupying the red corner?

Anonapundit:  Newly elected legislators who received a couple of thousand votes (38 newbies in the House alone) may have driven to Helena secure in the knowledge that they have a mandate to implement what their core supporters have as an interest, whether driven by local concerns, national issues, or political and media narratives, but this needs to be considered within a state-wide policy context. To be fair, the aforementioned context of public opinion towards state legislative service is a bit unfair. Most "citizen" legislators run and serve because they want to make a positive difference in their districts. Their gig involves long hours at low pay  in a stressful situation that puts additional pressure on their main jobs and families back home,  with the cynicism of the public at the end of the day for their efforts. That said, people watching the legislative show have plenty of examples of bills, debate, and dialogue to take issue with. Hunting with spears and/or a silencer on a FWP license that you purchased in gold coins (assuming the agency hasn't been eliminated) might well be hyperbole, but not by much of a stretch. Once again, the legislative branch is not a disciplined machine. It has never been pretty, but if you get elected you get to have your say. What remains to be seen is whether or not legislative leadership has their own end game plan that will match or perhaps surpass the purported institutional advantage of the executive.

So there you have it. Of course we’ll all have to wait and see what happens from here on out, but I think it’s safe to say that the biggest fireworks are usually saved for the end of the show.

AP: Anonymous political blogger using state computer network, sometimes 'all day long'

Now this is getting interesting.

The Associated Press’ Matt Gouras is reporting that anonymous liberal blogger MT Cowgirl has blogged from the state’s wireless computer network.

Of course, given that hundreds of people or use the state’s wireless network on any given day, Gouras’ story doesn’t definitively implicate any state employee of doing political work on state time and on state resources.


However,  according to the article, MT Cowgirl, whoever he or she is (she insists she’s indeed a she, though some commenters have suggested otherwise) frequently logged in on the state’s wireless network at the Office of Public Instruction, sometimes all day long:

The Department of Administration, provided with detail on the IP address of some posts, was able to identify that the blogger had been accessing — all day long at times — the state wireless guest system through a hookup in the Office of Public Instruction using an Apple Macintosh laptop.
The agency spokeswoman at the time, Jessica Rhoades, said neither she nor anyone else at the agency was doing it. Rhoades, who recently went to work for the governor's office, said the agency's information technology found at that time the wireless system could theoretically be accessed by someone sitting in the parking lot.

As Gouras points out in his article, whoever MT Cowgirl is, that particular blogger has shown an “uncanny knack” of tracking down insider information before anyone else, including most journalists, and has been a major cheerleader of Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Speculation about her/his identity has been a hot topic for many months within Montana’s political circles. MT Cowgirl blogs with a ferocity and frequency that’s dazzling, but she does so anonymously and without any accountability. She doesn’t hesitate to post a “rumor,” and she has at times angered fellow progressives.

Gouras’ story is hooked on a post Cowgirl wrote last weekend suggesting that Roy Brown was less of a man because of his appearance and choice of briefcase. I blogged about that earlier this week here.

But Gouras’ story raises an more important point than whether or not MT Cowgirl occasionally irritates her fellow Democrats:

The race between Van Dyk and Brown for a Billings Senate seats is one of the most heated legislative races of this campaign, and the post by the left-leaning, anonymous blogger underlines questions of accountability in attempting to influence elections in the new media age. Especially with posts coming from inside state government.

I’ve had dozens of conversations about MT Cowgirl in various circles in Helena and beyond. Most people I talk to believe that Cowgirl may in fact be more than one person, and let’s just say I wasn’t at all surprised that Gouras revealed that the blogger or bloggers known as MT Cowgirl often uses a state computer network from the Office of Public Instruction.

IR's Martin Kidston hired by Montana Democrats

According to a mostly-blank e-mail I received today, Helena Independent Record outdoors editor Martin J. Kidston is leaving the newspaper to take a job as communications director for the Montana Democratic Party.

According to the Helena rumor mill, Attorney General Steve Bullock has also hired a prominent Montana journalist in his communications office. Stay tuned for that announcement in the coming days or week.

It's not uncommon for journalists to go to work for politicians, political parties, or government agencies. For instance, longtime Associated Press statehouse reporter Bob Anez left the AP in 2005 to take a job as communications director for the Department of Corrections. Terri Knapp, Secretary of State Linda McCulloch's spokeswoman, quit her job at Montana's News Station in 2008 to go to work for then-Superintended of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch. She now heads McCulloch's press office in the Secretary of State's office.

Newspapers across the state continue to struggle financially and journalists are constantly faced with uncertain futures. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see more reporters leave the newsroom for communications jobs in the public and private sector.

UPDATE: Here's the full press release from the Montana Democratic Party:

HELENA--Gearing up for the November elections and setting its sights on 2012, the Montana Democratic Party has hired reporter and Marine Corps veteran Martin Kidston to lead its communications team. Kidston will work from Helena and begins next week.

A graduate of the University of Montana in Missoula, Kidston has spent the last 11 years at the Helena Independent Record. His most recent beats included the Montana military and the northern U.S. border.

“I’m excited to be a part of the Democratic Party,” Kidston said Tuesday. “I look forward to sharing the Party's message and working hard to improve the lives of everyday Montanans. I’ve seen the Party’s accomplishments first-hand and I’m eager to help build on its successes across the state.”

Born in Colorado, Kidston served six years in the Marine Corps, including a tour in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He moved to Missoula in 1994 to attend college and graduated in 1997 with a degree in English and a minor in philosophy.

During his tenure as a reporter, Kidston traveled widely covering Montana’s military training and the state’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. He toured both the northern and southern U.S. borders, and he recently travelled to Guatemala with the Helena Diocese to report on the Catholic mission in Santo Tomas.

Kidston is also the author of three books, including “Cromwell Dixon: A Boy and His Plane,” and “From Poplar to Papua: Montana’s 163rd Infantry Regiment in World War II.”