Analysis: Walsh “incumbency” not much of an advantage

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

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

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

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

As the Gazette correctly points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is whether the plan will backfire.

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

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

‘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.

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.

Critics question Bullock's strategy in Citizens United challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

Follow the Barry Beach bond hearing live

Judge E. Wayne Phillips’ Lewistown courtroom is packed.

Media outlets from across Montana – and even across the pond – have filled the jury box. More reporters have packed the front row of the gallery. The room is filled to capacity with supporters. Everyone is eagerly awaiting Phillips decision.

Will this be the day that formerly convicted murderer Barry Beach walks free?

Follow the courtroom action live at this link.

Late Tuesday afternoon Attorney General Steve Bullock’s office filed a notice of intent to appeal to the Supreme Court Phillips’ November ruling granting Beach a new trial. The state argues that Phillips erred in his legal justification for granting Beach a new trial.

Now they’re asking Phillips to stay today’s scheduled bond hearing pending a decision by the high court.

Beach’s lawyers say they’re still confident that Beach could walk out of prison today.

A reception room at the Yogo Inn has been reserved for the party.

A marquee outside the hotel reads “Welcome Barry Beach and supporters.”

But the outcome of today’s hearing is far from a sure thing. Phillips will have a lot of complex legal arguments to sort through before deciding whether or not to move forward with the bond hearing.

Even if they get to that point, there’s no guarantee Phillips will grant Beach – who is now officially charged with murder, but no longer convicted – bail. And even if he does, there’s no guarantee the bail will be low enough for Beach and his family to afford it.

The buzz in the courtroom at the moment is over the fact that the state’s attorneys, Tammy Plubell and Brant Light, did not make the trip from Helena. They will be appearing via Vision Net video teleconferencing.

Be sure to follow my live Twitter feed at the Great Falls Tribune website for all the latest developments.

State appeals ruling granting Beach new trial

On the eve of a hearing to determine whether Barry Beach should be released on bail pending a new murder trial, Attorney General Steve Bullock's office appealed Fergus County District Court Judge E. Wayne Phillips ruling granting Beach a new trial.

Lawyers for the state also filed a motion asking Phillips to stay Wednesday's bond hearing in Lewistown and to keep Beach in prison pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

Beach was transported to Lewistown Tuesday in preparation for the bond hearing, which is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.

Phillips last month found that new evidence in the case was credible and that a jury might not have found Beach guilty if the evidence was presented as his original trial.

Lawyers for Beach are asking Phillips to release Beach on his own recognizance pending a new trial.

But in an appeal filed Tuesday the state contends that Phillips failed to corroborate testimony from the post-conviction hearing with evidence from the original trial, including Beach’s "detailed and remorseful confession to the murder."

Beach has long maintained that his confession was coerced by aggressive Louisiana investigators. Beach also confessed to being involved in the three Louisiana murders, which turned out to be false. All three of those homicides were committed by others and Beach was never charged in Louisiana with any of those crimes. [A spokesperson for the state contacted me and said Beach never confessed to the three murders in Louisiana and that Beach’s defense lawyer made up the story that Beach confessed then later recanted.]

The state argues that, in addition to failing to consider all the evidence of Beach’s guilt, Phillips wrongly held that Beach’s new trial would include his ability to litigate claims of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. According to lawyers for the state, such claims are legal claims that cannot be decided by a jury.

“After a thorough and careful review of the district court’s order, the state has decided that it must appeal to the Montana Supreme Court,” Mark Mattioli, Appellate Services Bureau chief for the Montana Department of Justice, said in a statement. “The state is aware of no case in the country where a confessed murderer has been granted a new trial under circumstances like this.”

Check back later for more details. Follow me on Twitter: @TribLowdown.

Wanzenried drops bid for governor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wanzenried said in his statement:

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

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

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

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