Molnar illustrates flaws in prosecution of campaign finance violations

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 13:18:57 PM MST

On June 16, 2009, Respondent named Complainant's attorney as a witness for the hearing, and thereafter sought to disqualify Complainant's attorney from representing the Complainant at the hearing....Respondent's argument was that Complainant, her attorney, and others engaged in a conspiracy to oppose Respondent's re-election campaign, and that evidence about this alleged conspiracy was material to the charges against him....

On September 16, 2009, the hearing examiner issued a written decision, denying Respondent's disqualification motion. The hearing examiner held that the existence or non-existence of a conspiracy to undermine Respondent or his recent re-election campaign is not relevant or material to the narrow charges against him, and that accordingly, Complainant's attorney had no necessary or relevant information to provide as evidence at the hearing.

Got that? Molnar accused Mary Jo Fox and her attorney of forming a secret conspiracy to prevent his re-election to the PSC, and that these charges were manufactured as part of that conspiracy. Of course, that the charges were manufactured means the lawyer - or any lawyer for that matter - who assisted Fox in bringing them to the Commissioner of Political Practices should be disqualified from bringing the charges.

That is, because I am running for public office and any charges of campaign finance violations will hinder my re-election, "reasons" Molnar, any charges of campaign finance violations must be politically motivated and, therefore, false. Classic circular reasoning. But the Commissioner correctly noted that just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you are innocent.

The document is full of clumsy reasoning like this from Molnar. I love how Molnar calls Corbett - the hearing examiner - biased...after it was found he was guilty of the listed charges:

Respondent's allegations of bias are based on the unsubstantiated contention that the hearing examiner has made political contributions exclusively to Democratic Party candidates. The Respondent repeatedly describes the hearing examiner as a "Democratic operative."...Respondent's unsubstantiated assertion that Corbett has only made political contributions to Democrats is false.

It turns out Corbett hadn't made any donations since 2000; he also made contributions to Montana Supreme Court candidates with Republican affiliations.

Anyhow, this story isn't important only because it involves Brad Molnar, member of the PSC. It's also important because it baldly demonstrates serious flaws in the way we find and punish public officials guilty of violating law during a campaign. I'll let the Billings Gazette explain:

However, it took formal complaints from Fox, who managed the unsuccessful campaign of Molnar's 2008 general election opponent, Ron Tussing, to get an official ruling. Moreover, Fox told The Gazette State Bureau that her legal costs in the case total about $25,000; Molnar reported that his were at least $10,000. The state expended $14,945 just for the hearings examiner and court reporter. There ought to be a faster, simpler, less expensive way to resolve ethics complaints against state officials. Many Montanans don't have the time or money to pursue ethics complaints in the present system as Fox did.

Got that? Fox spent more money than Molnar was fined. And what has Molnar actually suffered besides the loss of $15K? He won his election - which took place almost two years ago. Talk about disincentives to bringing elections violations charges against a candidate for public office. Let's be frank: Molnar's violations were obvious and his self-defense supremely clumsy. If his violations essentially have no consequences, imagine what would happen to a more agile and deep-pocketed candidate...

Molnar says he won't pay fines

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 17:21:51 PM MST

Molnar: "I'm not going to pay no $14 thousand."

As usual, Molnar is blaming everyone else for his owne ethics violations. He claims the hearings examiner, William Corbett, "reversed all his past ethics rulings to reach his conclusions" and threatened a wrongful discharge suit against the state ("worth millions") if discharged by the governor.

For the details on Molnar's romp back-and-forth over the boundary between public office, campaigning, and private life, check out the LiTW archives on the man. The man apparently either has no clue what he did - which makes him a buffoon - or he's an evil git. You decide.

Molnar violated campaign finance rules, examiner finds

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 14:49:22 PM MST

Did I say "accuse"? Well, the accusation is now looking like a violation:

Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar violated state ethics laws by accepting illegal donations and using state office equipment for campaign purposes, a hearings examiner found.

University of Montana professor William Corbett recommended that Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth fine Molnar $5,750 and require him to pay for part of the cost of the proceedings against him because Molnar refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, was evasive, attacked the complainant and caused delays in the proceedings.

Such a flagrant misuse of his office and a contempt for his constituency and the general public should, under normal circumstances, lead to a tearful resignation. Of course, we're talking Brad Molnar here. Expect him to blame everyone else.

Molnar opposes NWE powerline plan

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:00:15 AM MST

On the other hand, the power lines would have to cut across the state, and there's a strong possibility Montanans would have to compete with Californians for the energy produced in Montana. That would probably mean higher rates for Montanans.

Brad Molnar - the highest ranking Republican state office holder! - has vowed to kill a Northwestern Energy project to build such a power line. Now, my first impulse is to disagree with Molnar, simply because he's not exactly your most rational public servant. (Seriously. Just check out an interview with Molnar on Montana Headlines.) If Molnar's against something, it's probably pretty good, right? But..sitting here in ol' mom's basement munching CoCo Puffs, I'm inclined to...*gasp*...agree with Molnar. Maybe.

Here's the thing. We hear all the time about making the United States "energy independent." Which essentially means making the country's energy consumption equal the country's energy production. So...why not make Montana energy independent? Can we build the wind farms and ensure  service to Montana ratepayers first? (Incidentally, I think there's more that could be done here making the state energy independent. Lease state lands for wind farms...and pursue a bold state lending plan, say, to make Montanans' homes energy efficient. Crank up those building codes! Etc & co.)

Or maybe I'm just a fool. Maybe Northwestern Energy high-power lines are what we need. Harness the free market, right? Use the tools that are there. NWE builds the lines to charge higher rates for power...which means they have incentive to produce more power, which would eventually lower prices. Right? Right?

Who am I kidding...

Brad Molnar's emails

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:45:02 PM MST

The contents of Molnar's government office e-mail in-box on July 14 contain a few campaign-related exchanges. For example, in one e-mail, Molnar asks someone to write a letter to the editor complimenting Molnar. In another, the commissioner used his state e-mail to distribute his own editorial attacking his Democratic opponent, Ron Tussing.

The exciting part is that there's supposedly some other goodies in the emails. Only I can't sift through them today. Anybody interested in looking through the correspondence and posting the best stuff in the comments?

Brad Molnar rejects the public's right to review his government email account

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 14:43:44 PM MST

At the center of it all is PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar.

The irony -- or typical response -- is that it's always someone else's fault than his own. In the Dennison piece, Molnar blames his bad publicity on an "environmentalist-liberal crusade." Yet Ron Tussing, Molnar's opponent, and his campaign manager Mary Jo Fox are anything but liberal crusaders. Fox, who has several complaints out against Molnar with the Commissioner of Political Practices, is a former Republican and even worked in Marc Racicot's office during his tenure as governor.

Commenting on the eight complaints filed against him by Mary Jo Fox, Molnar cries "political harassment."

"I'm not aware of anything I've done that is wrong," he says. "(The complaints are) to make me use up time and money responding to them. It's to generate negative headlines, period: 'Molnar defends this, or that, blah, blah, blah.' "

But as you've already seen on this site, it seems clear that Molnar violated his office's trust in soliciting and receiving funds from corporations that the PSC regulates. Funds Molnar initially used to promote an energy-savings event, but then later used to help his campaign.

Molnar's interview with Montana Headlines made it clear's he's a partisan hack and a bully, with numerous unfounded and baseless personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with him. As Pogie pointed out when this interview first appeared:

In much the same way, I have to wonder why the pro-Brad Molnar Montana Headlines blog would post its interview with the man. I don't even feel like I need to make any editorial comment about Molnar-his words for speak for themselves.

For that reason, I highly recommend that you visit a few pages produced by conservatives as you consider your choices for the November election.

Brad Molnar, demonstrating his charming personality, grasp of facts, and general disposition, in two parts.

(And Molnar's jokes about his assaults? While he doesn't have any convictions, I found record of at least two incidents in which he was accused of assault. But, again, like with everything else, it's always someone else's fault.)

The latest is a Tussing/Fox request to release all of Molnar's emails sent from his PSC account. Molnar doesn't want to share his emails because some of them are "private." Mike Dennison:

Whether Molnar has any right to privacy regarding use of his office computer and e-mail account is debatable. State employees and officials sign a consent form that says their computer and its contents can be examined at any time, and that they have no expectation of privacy.

Greg Jergeson said the only privacy right he can imagine is for a third party who sends information to Molnar at his office, such as a constituent relating personal information.

"Debatable"? In that only Brad Molnar debates his government email account isn't supposed to be used for government work? And he thinks we don't have a right to know that he's been using taxpayer money to conduct business dealings or political work? That'll come as a surprise to the Missoula council members who were busted for sending email during town meetings.

Here's the Molnar money quote:

"This is not like we're giving it to the press," Molnar said. "It's like we're going to give it to someone for political purposes who can and will manipulate documents. Before we send it out, we need to be cognizant of who we're sending it to."

Attention, Brad Molnar. The press does not have a special status in our society. Your political opponents are members of the public, and as such, like the press, they have a right to know what you're up to while you're at work in a publically elected office.

But it's just another political ploy, right Brad?

Brad Molnar's ugly little mess

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 20:40:24 PM MST

Here's the official complaint (pdf) lodged by Art Noonan, which alleges that Brad Molnar used $1,450 of funds solicited from private corporations regulated by the PSC to produce brochures promoting a "brownout" event, but which is actually a thinly veiled piece of campaign literature.

The damning details: Molnar received $1,000 from NorthWestern Energy, $1,000 from PPL, and $450 from WalMart and deposited into a personal checking account. The brochure (found in the complaint) features his picture prominently displayed, and attached to the brochures is a sticker that reads, "Brad Molnar, Your Conservation Candidate for Public Service Commission." Molnar continues to distribute the literature even as the brownout is over; there's a convenient line on the brochure that reads, "The brownout may be over. But the tips are still good!"