Looking back on Obama's campaign promise to hold companies accountable for environmental disasters

UPDATE: I'm having trouble with the audio player, so scroll to the bottom of this post and hit the pause button if you don't want to listen while you read.

Earlier today I was watching live webcam footage of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil gusher and was reminded of a conversation I had in 2008 with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.

I interviewed Obama at a campaign event in Butte. We were maybe a mile from the edge of the Berkely Pit. I thought in light of the fact that he was making a campaign stop in the city that's home to one of the nation's largest environmental catastrophes, I'd ask him what he'd do to make sure that corporations would be held accountable for their messes in the future.

This was his response:

Adams: Butte’s home to one of the worst environmental in the country. We’ve (Montana) got the Libby asbestos mine, another example of resource extraction run amok. It's cost hundreds of people’s lives and millions of dollars to clean up. What would you do as president to make sure these companies are held accountable for their actions, and would you fight to properly fund federal agencies so that they can get these messes cleaned up, like the Superfund Program?

Obama: We’ve got to make the Superfund work. Look, I’ve got a lot of Superfund sites in Illinois. And this is a program that, because of special interest lobbying, resistance, the lack of a strong commitment of the EPA, has been withering on the vine. We’ve got to restore it and hold corporations accountable for the messes that they make.

They took these profits out of these communities, and the least they can do is restore some sort of environmental balance. This is something I’ve been fighting for, and this is something I will continue to fight for and actually implement when I’m President of the United States.

As the oil continues to gush out of the ocean floor, only time will tell if Obama will, or can, follow through on that campaign promise he made in Butte.

Here’s the full audio of the 2008 interview from the Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner in Butte, Montana.

Tester to unveil new forest bill draft details Thursday

I just received word that Sen. Jon Tester will hold a conference call with reporters tomorrow morning to share details of a new draft of his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

It’s not yet clear whether a full version of this latest draft will be available tomorrow or not. His staff person said the updated draft has been submitted to the Office of Legislative Counsel for review. She assured me that once legislative counsel is done dotting Is and crossing Ts the bill will be available to the public.

As soon as the latest draft is available I’ll post it here.

Earlier this month a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee “discussion draft” made headlines when some of the key supporters of Tester’s original bill came out in opposition to the committee’s suggested changes. (view the two-part draft here and here)

The discussion draft removed a key provision that called for the mandated logging of 100,000 acres of timber on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests. Members of the collaborative group that helped draft the original measure, including some of the environmental groups in the Beeverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, said they would not support a bill that does not contain logging mandates.

In a brief interview after my June 4 story ran in the Tribune, Tim Baker, legislative campaign director for the Montana Wilderness Association, said the committee’s draft was “inadequate.”

“We have to have a piece of legislation that has those mandates in there. Those are types of assurances our timber partners need and we are all committed to working together on this and sticking together on it,” Baker said. “If the final products doesn’t meet the needs of our timber partners, then we’re not supportive.”

Reporter Matthew Frank addressed that issue in more detail in last week’s Missoula Independent.

Be sure to check out Friday’s Tribune for a full story and the latest details on Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Check back here tomorrow for information about the press call and a copy of the latest draft, if available.

McDonald, Rehberg win party nominations for U.S. House

No shocker here: GOP stalwart Denny Rehberg has easily won his party’s nomination for U.S. House.

The anti-incumbent sentiment affecting some of the statehouse races this election season skipped Rehberg, who now faces former Montana Democratic Party Chairman Dennis McDonald in the Nov. 2 general election. Mike Fellows, the perennial Libertarian candidate will also be on the ballot in November.

Rehberg fended off challenges from the left and the right in his first-ever GOP House primary. A.J. Otjen, the most liberal of the three Republican candidates, fared the worst Tuesday night, garnering a mere 6 percent of the vote as of 11:30 p.m. Mark French, the right-wing self-described “constitution candidate” pulled in 19 percent of the vote. Rehberg had 75 percent of the vote with 620 of 792 precincts reporting.

"I don't think that anybody missed the message that the electorate and Montanans, as well, are upset with the direction of the country," Rehberg said Tuesday night from Washington, D.C. "I just appreciate Montanans giving me a vote of confidence to carry the banner forward."

For his part, McDonald, the early favorite in the Democratic race for the nomination, fended off a late surge by 28-year-old Missoula attorney Tyler Gernant. Gernant made a big push in the final weeks, raising more money than McDonald in the final reporting period. He was also the favorite of Montana’s Democratic bloggers, but in the end McDonald captured about 39 percent of the vote. Gernant had 24 percent of the vote, and Great Falls paralegal Melinda Gopher had 20 percent. Sam Rankin, a Billings real estate broker who jumped into the race late, took about 17 percent of the vote.

As the Associated Press pointed out, McDonald wasted no time in attacking Rehberg late Tuesday night:

"He's a professional politician who's been asleep in his office for the last 10 years. He's offered no ideas, no solutions, no hope," McDonald said. "I'm just going to go out across Montana as I've been doing and tell the voters what I'm about. They already know that Rehberg has done absolutely nothing."

Now that the field is set Democrats will no doubt try to make political hay over Rehberg’s involvement in a late night Flathead Lake boat crash last summer that left Rehberg and two of his staff members seriously injured.

Republicans, meanwhile, are chomping at the bit to resume their attacks on McDonald for once representing organized crime figure-turned mob informant Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratianno back when McDonald was an attorney in California.

Unlike 2008, when Democratic nominee John Driscoll actually endorsed Rehberg before the election, expect the 2010 race for Montana’s U.S. House Seat to be a bloody, and muddy, battle.

Kavulla close to victory in GOP primary for PSC District 1

As of late Tuesday, Travis Kavulla, the 25-year-old GOP wunderkind and the youngest Public Service Commission candidate in recent memory, had a 10 percentage point lead over state Sen. Jerry Black in the Republican primary race for the PSC District 1 seat.

As of 11 p.m. Tuesday, Kavulla had 55 percent of the vote to Black’s 45 percent, with 79 of 198 precincts reporting.

The latest tally from the Secretary of State’s office can be found here.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press was reporting that Helena attorney Bill Gallagher and former Secretary of State Brad Johnson were in a dead heat in the District 5 PSC Republican primary with 63 of 147 precincts, or 43 percent, reporting.

Johnson, who suspended his campaign last week after being arrested for drunk driving, trailed his opponent with 7,377 votes to Gallagher’s 7,421 votes.

Kavulla, a writer and activist from Great Falls, out-fundraised Black, a two-term state senator from Shelby, nearly 2 to 1.

The winner of Tuesday’s primary will face Democrat Don Ryan, a former state senator from Great Falls, in the Nov. 2 general election.

With 60 percent of the votes still waiting to be tallied late Tuesday, Kavulla was in high spirits and expecting to win the GOP nomination.

“Obviously we’re happy with the turnouts so far. We ran a really strong campaign and I think you’re seeing the fruits of that,” Kavulla said.

With Kavulla carrying a strong lead in Cascade County, Black all but conceded the election Tuesday night.

“I can’t make any prediction of how those remaining votes will come in, but it looks to me like Cascade County is the key and he’s carrying Cascade County very well. I think that’s where the swing voters are,” Black said. “The way he is carrying Cascade County he will probably win the election, but we’ll have to wait and see.”

Officials in large counties such as Fergus and Richland were still counting ballots late Tuesday, but Kavulla led in Choteau, Daniels, Garfield, Judith Basin and Sheridan counties.

Black led in Blaine, Hill, McCone, Petroleum, Roosevelt, Toole, Valley and Wibaux Counties.

“I’m concerned that we have to wait for the Hi-Line counties to come in and Lewistown, but I think it’s going to be hard for my opponent to find the votes to close that gap,” Kavulla said late Tuesday night. “Of course, I could be eating those words tomorrow (Wednesday).”

Black congratulated Kavulla Tuesday on running a strong campaign.

“He worked very hard and that’s what it takes, but we’ll just have to wait until morning to see what happens,” Black said.

Some abortion foes urge supporter to NOT sign CI-102 petition at the polls

As I reported in today’s Tribune, voters heading to the polls today to cast their ballots in the primary election will be greeted by signature gatherers at many polling locations throughout Montana.

Supporters of various constitutional and statutory initiatives will be out in force trying to gather the required number of voter signatures to qualify their measures for the November ballot. The deadline for signature gathering is June 18.

One of the groups planning to take advantage of today's election to gather more signatures is the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, a group working to ban abortion.

"Polling places are public forums that provide a great opportunity to gather signatures and explain the pro-life position," Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek, of the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, said in a statement last week.

Bukacek, who declined an interview request for this story, is the sponsor of CI-102, an initiative aimed at outlawing abortion by defining a "person" as including all human beings "from the beginning of the biological development."

She participated in a similar ballot initiative in 2008.

In an e-mail to supporters, Bukacek warned CI-102 signature gathers and supporters to learn from the experiences of the last primary election.

"In 2008, many of those hired to oppose us were belligerent, some made false accusation to election judges and misinformed the police," Bukacek said. "We have taken precautions to improve the experience of pro-life signature gatherers by communicating with law enforcement beforehand."

But this time around it's not just pro-abortion rights groups that are opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

I blogged about this division last year shortly after the Montana Pro-Life Coalition announced the CI-102 campaign.

Anti-abortion groups such as the Right to Life of Montana and the Montana Catholic Conference are urging their supporters to stay away from CI-102.

In a letter posted on Right to Life of Montana's website, executive director Gregg Trude called the proposed amendment "a serious tactical mistake" in the fight to end abortion:

"The Montana Personhood Amendment people have an agenda. They have not shown a good faith intention to develop a true coalition involving reasonable dialogue with other well-established Pro-Life groups. Consistently, they point to judicial tyranny and offer no realistic strategy of how they propose to end it."

"There are some people that have blinders on and they are not looking at the political ramifications behind it," Trude said in an interview Monday. "There are always people out there that don't care about the ramifications of this. They only care that they believe they are doing the right thing."

Chief among Trude's concerns is the fear that if CI- 102 becomes law it could lead to an affirmation of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

"I appreciate the intent for which they have tried to do this, but this just isn't the right time," Trude said. "If they get enough signatures, and it does pass, then it goes to the Montana Supreme Court and then goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Where, Trude said, Justice Anthony Kennedy would probably side with the four liberal members on the panel and "concrete" the Roe v. Wade decision.

While some anti-abortion groups are opposed to CI-102, Allyson Hagen, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana, said the division is really just a difference of strategy.

"These groups share the same goal of outlawing abortion and endangering the health of Montana women," Hagen said. "The consequences of amendments like this are far-reaching and dangerous. We ask that all Montanans who value the right to privacy and the health and safety of the women in their lives decline to sign the petition for CI-102."

To qualify an initiative or referendum for the November 2010 ballot, sponsors must obtain

signatures of 5 percent of the total number of qualified voters in the state, including 5 percent of the voters in each of 34 legislative house districts, for a total of 24,337 signatures.

To qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, signatures of 10 percent of the total number of qualified voters in the state, including 10 percent of the voters in each of 40 legislative house districts must be obtained for a total of 48,674 signatures.

UPDATE: I mistakenly reported that the Montana Family Foundation is also urging its supporters to stay away from the CI-102 initiative. While MFF executive director Jeff Laszloffy has told me in the past the his organization is not supporting CI-102, he pointed out in an e-mail to me this morning the following:

"With regards to the Montana Family Foundation that is incorrect. We've taken a completely neutral stance on 102 and have not contacted our constituents regarding the initiative at all."

Tester's forest bill, transparency, and the legislative process

In Friday’s Tribune I reported that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has written a “discussion draft” of Sen. Tester’s “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.” This particular draft contains significant changes to Tester’s original bill, but so far only a select few have seen it.

I’ve obtained a copy of the discussion draft. It’s in two parts. You can download it here and here.

I think it’s worth talking a bit about the process of reporting this story in order to shed some light on one of the issues at the heart of the debate over Sen. Tester’s forest bill: transparency in the legislative process.

When I learned about this latest discussion draft I called Sen. Tester’s office and asked his staff for a copy of it. Upon my initial inquiry I was lead to believe that Sen. Tester’s office wasn’t aware of the draft. After subsequent phone calls and e-mails I was told that I would have to contact the energy committee staff to get a copy of it.

I’ve since confirmed that reporters for other Montana newspapers have also asked Sen. Tester’s office for the draft, and they too were referred to the energy committee staff.

In reporting the story yesterday, Tester’s staffer would not confirm whether or not the committee draft existed, or whether or not the senator had seen it. But I learned later Thursday afternoon that at least some members of the collaborative group who helped draft the original bill had received a copy of the discussion draft from Tester’s staff sometime within the last two weeks.

Tony Colter, of Sun Mountain Lumber in Deer Lodge, told me he had talked with Tester’s staff about the discussion draft. Colter said the committee draft was unsupportable by Montana’s timber industry because it dropped language that mandated 100,000 acres of logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.

Asked where Tester stood on the committee's revisions, Colter said:

“They’re in agreement with us, but you probably ought to talk to them,” Colter said.

Ed Regan, of RY Timber in Townsend, has also seen the draft.

“Yeah, I have seen it,” Regan said when I asked him about discussion draft. “It’s been about a week ago.”

When I asked Regan where he got the committee draft, he said:

“I think it came through Tester’s staff.”

But when I asked Tester’s staff about the discussion draft, no one would even acknowledge that it existed. I was told Sen. Tester was traveling most of the day and was unavailable for comment. I did get this statement from Sen. Tester late in the afternoon when he was between flights:

“This bill started with Montanans working together to craft a made-in-Montana solution to improve our forest management that was built on a commitment to create jobs through logging, recreation, and wilderness. There are a number of changes folks would like to see made to S. 1470 – some will be implemented, all will be considered. Make no mistake, if the timber mandates are not part of the deal, I'll pull the plug on the whole thing."

Tester did not directly respond to my question of whether or not there was a committee discussion draft or what his position on the draft was. Instead I was told by his staff to call the Senate energy committee press office, which I did. I didn’t hear back until the following day.

I received a call Friday from Bill Wicker, a spokesman for the Senate energy committee. Wicker said discussion drafts aren’t typically shared with the public and he said he couldn’t provide me a copy of the draft of Tester’s bill. He said a discussion draft is a “committee work product” that is produced by staff as they attempt to craft a compromise bill that can pass the full committee. He said some discussion drafts go through a dozen or more iterations, and they’re shared along the way with other members of the committee and with experts, which in this case included Forest Service staff. He said Tester was given the draft and that he likely shared the draft with other partners working on the legislation.

Wicker told me that this current version of the discussion draft is likely to change, and he said it doesn’t serve the legislative process well to release it to the public every step of the way.

“My legislative staff will very quickly remind me that we don’t negotiate in the press,” Wicker said. “If we start negotiating in the press we’d never pass a single bill.”

One lesson Montanans might take from this story is that the legislative process at the federal level is much different from the legislative process here in Montana. In Montana, nearly any document produced by a state employee, including the legislative staffers who draft bills, are public documents and available to anyone who asks at any point in the process. If a state employee produces a document on a state computer on state time, that document is a matter of public record. Period. The only exception is in cases where individual privacy is concerned. When it comes to drafting legislation, individual privacy is not an issue. Therefore, Montanans are used to a level of transparency that doesn’t exist at the federal level.

Part of the controversy stems from the fact that Sen. Tester has, since his days on the campaign trail, been lauded as a champion of openness and transparency in government. The Sunlight Foundation has repeatedly applauded his efforts to increase transparency and openness government. Shortly after taking office he made statewide national headlines for being the first senator to post his daily schedule online. Just last month he introduced the “Public Online Information Act” a bill that supporters say would “revolutionize how the public accesses government information.” In a 2008 guest editorial in the Missoulian announcing that he would have former Montana Supreme Court Justice John Sheehy conduct an “ethics audit,” on his first year in office, Tester said:

“Montanans deserve honesty, openness and transparency.”

and that…

“Openness and transparency are critically important to me.”

When rumors began to circulate early last year that Tester was working on a forest bill, I officially requested a copy of the draft on May 27, 2009. I received no response. I asked again on July 14 of that year for a copy of the draft. I was told then that I would have to wait until July 17 when Tester planned to announce the bill at a press event at RY Timber in Townsend.

But throughout the bill’s drafting process selected members of a collaborative group that included Sun Mountain Lumber, Montana Wilderness Association, RY Timber Inc., Montana Trout Unlimited, Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc., Roseburg Forest Products, National Wildlife Federation and Smurfit Stone Container were circulating the draft and working with Tester’s staff. The rest of the public, including the press, were told we had to wait to see it.

This discussion draft, like the original proposal, is currently being circulated by those same handful of supporters, while everyone else, including members of the Montana press, are left to find out details of the drafting process on their own.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that groups who were not included in the collaborative effort to craft the forest jobs were crying foul over Tester’s lack of transparency from the beginning, and some are up in arms about the appearance of secrecy surrounding the discussion draft now.