2 Problems

First Amendment concerns (0.00 / 0)

I share Singer's concerns over First Amendment issues. Hendrickson's behavior is reprehensible, but it's constitutional. Asking the MT CPP to adjudicate the truth of a campaign claim is asking the CPP to exercise power he doesn't and shouldn't have (how would the CPP enforce a decision that a claim was false -- by issuing an order for prior restraint?).

The Democrats should take their complaints to the voters. Let the voters decide. That's why we have elections.  

---

by: jrconner @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 17:37:29 PM UTC

Hendrickson's reply (0.00 / 0)

I posted Hendrickson's reply, albeit a brief one, at www.missoularedtape.com. Hendrickson also said he isn't surprised the complaint was filed, but he didn't elaborate.

---

by: Keila Szpaller @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:03:24 PM UTC

thanks for the tip... (0.00 / 0)

I'll add a link to your post in Matt's post...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 20:39:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Houseman concerns (0.00 / 0)

In the spirit of the first amendment...and assuming I'll take some heat for even bringing this up...here it goes:

I do think Roy Houseman would make a decent city council rep, especially when compared with John Hendrickson, so I hope Missoula's Ward 2 voters recognize that. But I also think all the letters to the editor we've seen in recent days gushing about Roy ignore some basic facts in an effort to make him out to be the Second Coming.

For example, I've been turned off by the fact that Roy lobbied in Washington DC for Smurfit Stone Container (and other massive pulp and paper producers) to receive nearly $10 Billion from US Taxpayers by exploiting a loophole in an alternative energy tax credit. Adding insult to injury (and to the environment) this $10 Billion in US taxpayer money transferred directly to these pulp and paper companies (Smurfit Stone, for example, got over $540 million) was the result of these companies burning through an extra 20 Billion gallons of diesel fuel.

Interestingly enough the Missoulian has known about this for months, but has chosen to never share these facts about Smurfit with it's readers, even though some Smurfit employees have directly told me that the Missoula plant would be shut down except for the $540 million Smurfit's gotten from US taxpayers. Talk about socialism, eh? Here we have a corporation in bankruptcy with no demand for its products and we prop them up with a $540 million bailout!

Also, according to one of our Board members who spoke with Houseman this past weekend, Roy really believes the number one issue facing Smurfit Stone is a lack of national forest logging. So Roy would like to see more public lands logging at a point in our nation's history when demand for lumber has plummeted more than 50% and the pulp and paper markets aren't any better? How is that progressive policy? Fact is, Smurfit Stone is large, multinational corporation with 150 facilities around the world and they are in bankruptcy right now because there is no demand for their paper packaging products, not because of a lack of logs from national forests.

Houseman also said quite specifically that our organization, WildWest Institute, "Files lawsuits on every timber sale." Fact is, right now on the Lolo and Bitterroot NF there isn't one single timber sale lawsuit or appeal, despite the false rhetoric that Roy was spreading just this past weekend. Fact is, our organization is deeply involved with open, inclusive and transparent public lands collaborative processes to find solutions to tough forest management issues. To be quite honest, it's clear that Roy really doesn't understand what he's talking about when it comes to national forest management. He's just repeating much of the false rhetoric that's been the storyline in these parts for years.

I can certainly understand and appreciate Roy's commitment to workers at Smurfit Stone, but this $10 Billion taxpayer boondoogle to burn an extra 20 Billion gallons of diesel fuel seems about the furthest thing from enlightened, progressive environmental policy one can imagine. We can do better and Roy should be held accountable for his actions which have helped cost taxpayers nearly $10 Billion and also resulted in the needless burning of an additional 20  billion gallons of diesel.

For more detailed information on this taxpayer boondoggle by the pulp and paper industry visit:

http://cleangreensustainable.w... and

http://cleangreensustainable.w...

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:42:27 PM UTC

lets get it straight Matt (0.00 / 0)

Matt,

Roy's lobbying efforts have not been to gain money for the mill, but rather his fellow workers who were laid off.  Roy independently (no help from Smurfit Stone) secured this money, which is Trade Adjustment Assistance, not a loop hole in the alternative energy tax credit  You might want to brush up here: http://www.missoulian.com/news...

---

by: Roscoe @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 21:10:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lets get it straight Roscoe... (0.00 / 0)

You are talking about something completely different from what I wrote about above in my comments. I have no problems at all with Roy helping to get as much NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance money for Smurfit's Frenchtown workers

I'm talking about the "black liquor tax credit" loophole, which the pulp and paper industry has exploited for $10 billion in US taxpayer money to burn an extra almost 20 billion gallons of diesel (to produce paper and packaging products, which have little demand right now anyway). Smurfit's take has been over $540 million from US taxpayers.

Check out the links I posted above for more information.  Also, people may remember this article from the Missoula Indy on May 28, 2009 (http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/tipping-point/Content?oid=1148001), which opened with:

"Roy Houseman, the 28-year-old president of United Steel Workers Local 885, just returned from Washington, D.C., where for three weeks he lobbied to keep open a tax loophole he thinks might save his job and a few hundred others in Missoula."

So Roscoe, like I said above, I realize I may take some heat for even bringing a concern about Roy Houseman...But next time you try and come at me with some heat, at least make sure you know what you're talking about and that you "brush up" on your facts? Ok, buddy?

Thanks.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 21:26:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the clairfication (0.00 / 0)

But lets be clear, your post implied that Roy's only lobbying work was for the "loophole" in the alternative tax credit.  Give the guy some credit for the work he did this fall to get adjustment money.      

---

by: Roscoe @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 21:38:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roscoe, again, lets be clear... (0.00 / 0)

No where in my post do I "imply that Roy's only lobbying work" was for this "black liquor tax credit loophole."  I would challenge you to find otherwise. Heck, I even mentioned that "I can certainly understand and appreciate Roy's commitment to workers at Smurfit Stone."

Remember, I went into some great detail about the "black liquor tax credit loophole" and Roy's lobbying on behalf of it and even provided links for more information on this $10 billion/20 billion gallons of diesel boondoggle.

It was clearly you who were mistaken about what I was even talking about in the first place...so while I'm glad you appreciate the clarification...please now don't try and save some face by saying I was implying something when there is clear evidence that I was not. Thanks.

Moving on...

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 22:15:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]