Steve Bullock has been doing a hell of a job standing up for Montana's ban on corporate spending in elections, making the sort of case that just may reversed Citizens United on the basis of facts (what do they say -- good judges decide cases, not law).
One of his opponents in these cases is Western Tradition Partnership, the apparent one-time employer of Tim Ravndal (the tea party leader who joked about Matthew Shepard's death on Facebook). Western Tradition Partnership is the epitome of entitled good-old-boyism. And they just took it a step further.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the WTP's executive director Donald Ferguson compared "Montana regulations to state poll taxes, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 1966. Montana's position, Mr. Ferguson says, is like saying poll taxes are no burden because 'you just have to pay a tax and then you can vote.'"
For a group with such a dodgy record on civil and human rights, that's a bold statement. Did I say bold? I meant borderline racist. Poll taxes were hardly a standalone thing. They were a part of an entire set of laws and practices that involved attacking black men, women, and children with dogs and fire hoses. Corporations, on the other hand, are business entities created by the state to limit liability. Not exactly the same thing. Not even close, in fact.
Update -- In another news story that buries the lede, Montana state investigator Robert Hoffman "said his investigation has found evidence that Western Tradition Partnership intends to or has tried to solicit donations from officers of several foreign corporations or their affiliations, including some based in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom." Foreign contributions to influence federal elections are still illegal. All corporate contributions to influence state elections are still illegal.
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock scored another victory for family farms and ranches this week when federal regulators included many of his demands in a proposed rule to reform the industry. Bullock is leading a 16-state effort to save small farmers and ranchers by pushing the federal government to use antitrust weapons to fight increasing consolidation in agriculture.
The toothless anti-trust regulations that Bullock is trying to reform have
"contributed to the exodus of about 150,000 cattle operations since the mid-1990s, which has, consequently, caused the hollowing out of rural communities all across America."
The proposed reforms would improve market transparency and further define practices that are unfair, discriminatory or deceptive, including efforts by big packers that would limit the legal rights of small producers.
John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs said that the rule isn't perfect, "but it is the most aggressive, significant livestock market reform to come out of Washington, perhaps since the passage of the Packers and Stockyards Act itself.
"This rule will breathe some life, some competition back into our livestock markets," he said. "And we're going to work hard to keep improving it, and we're going to fight -- tooth and nail -- to ensure that the packers cannot weaken the rule."
Charles Johnson today mulls the rumors for the 2012 election, which should be a hum-dinger, what with a open gubernatorial seat and Jon Tester up for re-election.
According to Johnson, here are the rumored gubernatorial hopefuls:
On the Democratic side, they include Attorney General Steve Bullock of Helena; state Sen. Larry Jent of Bozeman; state Transportation Director Jim Lynch of Kalispell; and state Sen. Dave Wanzenried of Missoula.
Republicans include: state Sen. Taylor Brown, R-Huntley; former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill of Helena; Dean Folkvord of Three Forks, CEO of Wheat Montana Farms and Bakery; former state GOP Chairman Erik Iverson of Missoula; national security and terrorism expert Neil Livingstone of Helena and Washington, D.C.; state Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson of Buffalo; state Senate President Bob Story of Park City; and state Sen. Ryan Zinke of Whitefish.
On the Democratic side, Wanzenried and Bullock, IMHO, would seem to be the front-runners in that primary (and what an interesting primary that would be). Jent doesn't have the same political charisma of either Bullock or Wanzenried. And Lynch...? That one caught me by surprise. He's never run for office before, and the DoT seems a poor springboard for a political campaign...but who knows?
On the Republican side, it's interesting that many of the rumored gubernatorial candidates are political newcomers. Zinke and T. Brown have only one legislative session behind them. Folkvord's never run for public office, but as a former rodeo champion and owner of Wheat Montana, he's got an interesting profile.
Retread Rick Hill is an interesting option. Iverson's political ambition has been long-rumored, but does he have too much baggage from his years at the head of the state GOP and on Rehberg's staff? Of the rumored state senate candidates, Jim Peterson is distinctly uninspiring, but Bob Story could be an interesting dark horse candidate.
Of the bunch, I'd say Taylor Brown is probably the Republicans' strongest candidate. He's got a high profile in the state, a ton of money, a radio network, and could probably easily tap into Conrad Burns' former political network.
But...the biggest name is missing from this bunch: Dennis Rehberg. And Johnson links his name to the 2012 Senate race. Which, frankly, I find surprising. It'd be a lot tougher race than governor, but maybe Rehberg thinks the political winds favor him. Still, 2012 will be in another era, politically speaking, and in the middle of another presidential race.
Steve Daines' name was mentioned for the Senate race, too, but, of course he couldn't beat Bob Kelleher in the 2008 primary.
Update: My bad! Daines, of course, was Brown's running mate in their epic 2008 loss to Schweitzer. I confused him with Kirk Bushman, the other businessman-turned-politico the GOP offered up that year. My bad.
She, like the Governor, now travels with an entourage.
Why just the other night at the Truman Dinner in Billings, she showed up with three staffers: State Rep. Galen Hollenbaugh (her deputy chief of staff), her chief of staff and her chief legal counsel. (kind of have to wonder who was running the real show in Helena that day.)
Lately, the Governor's daily schedule has been littered with references to the Secretary of State accompanying him around the state. On Wednesday, it's off to Lewistown.
Might it be that Joe Lamson and others have sprinkled the holy water and convinced Linda to abandon one corner office in the Capitol Building for another in 2012?
This could just be a reward for Linda's outspoken support and vote for the Otter Creek coal lease. It may also be a payback for Attorney General Steve Bullock (who is rumored to be systematically building momentum for a gubernatorial campaign) daring to part ranks with the Governor on the coal leases? This sort of in-your-face is so Schweitzer-like regardless of Linda's real intentions in 2012.
Gotta say, I'm a big fan of this letter from Attorney General Steve Bullock to Republican legislators regarding their call for him to waste taxpayer resources on a ridiculous lawsuit.
Some of my favorite excerpts:
Like you, I take seriously my oath of office to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana," as well as to "discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
[...]
I have analyzed these claims as I analyze constitutional challenges to our own laws, with the understanding that overturning the constitutional judgment of a popularly elected legislature grave matter in a constitutional democracy.
Although your letter is short on legal specifics [...] [emphasis added]
[...]
As Justice Scalia explained in Raich, "[w]here necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." Id. at 35 (Scalia, concurring).
[...]
The lawsuit you urge me to join does claim that States participating in the federal Medicaid program must provide coverage, but also concedes that States may "avoid the Act's requirements" by "drop[ping] out of the Medicaid program." Florida v. Sebelius, Complt. fl 40. Although this choice would leave millions of people uninsured, it is a choice any of the States may make if they disapprove of how Congress wants federal Medicaid funds spent, and this choice is consistent with the Tenth Amendment. See New York v. United States. 505 U.S. 144 (ree2).
But it is really the ending of the letter where Steve Bullock reminds Scott Sales not to try to play with the big kids where he is clearly out of his depth:
The lawsuit also presents serious standing and ripeness issues, given that it appears to be filed based more on the timing of the November 2010 elections than the date in2014 when individuals and states might first be subject to the Act's requirements.
Therefore, I have concluded that once you take the politics out of these issues, there is no credible constitutional claim. So, like nearly three-quarters of my Democratic and Republican colleagues in state Attorney General offices across the country, I have not joined the lawsuit. We are not alone in our bipartisan opposition to politicizing the Constitution and the courts in this way. Eighteen of your Republican counterparts in the United States Senate sponsored a similar health insurance reform bill in 1993, see 5.1770,103rd Cong. (1993), and I do not doubt their fidelity to their constitutional oath. Lawyers and constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have determined, as President Reagan's former Solicitor General Charles Fried has said, that the lawsuit is "simply a political ploy" without legal merit.
As legislators, you understand as much as any citizen the importance of resolving our heartfelt policy differences through the democratic process. Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits will not change the outcome if, contrary to nearly a century of precedent, the Supreme Court takes the surprising step of striking down this law and taking the country back to the days when the farm bill and social security were constitutionally suspect. Most importantly, however, Montana's decision not to join these lawsuits leaves these critical questions of national policy in the hands of "We the People" and our elected representatives, where these decisions belong.
State Senator Roy Brown is one of the 74 Republican lawmakers calling on Steve Bullock to waste his office's resources by joining other states in a likely futile lawsuit to strike down the new health care bill.
KULR-8 has the Billings Senator on video. In that clip, he makes two notable arguments, both of which are patently false:
First, that every single person in this country buy a product. There are huge classes of people not required to buy any product. Individuals insured through their employer or by another government program (including Medicaid, which will be available to all low-income Americans by the time the individual mandate kicks in) or for whom the purchase would represent a financial hardship are exempt from the mandate. In other words, the tax for not having insurance only applies to working Americans who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and choose to remain uninsured. They pay an extra tax in exchange for having access to the insurance regulations and protections, like the end of pre-existing condition discrimination, available under the bill to all Americans.
If you don't buy insurance you get fined and if you don't get fined you go to jail. Actually the law explicitly prevents people from being jailed:
The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.
Enforcement would occur through the holding of tax refunds or other mechanisms presumably in the meantime.
There are two things unfortunate about this. The first is that Roy Brown is calling for Montana taxpayers to spend a bunch of money pursuing crackpot legal theories based on his factually incorrect understanding of a law. The second is that KULR-8 didn't factcheck claims made by a partisan looking to score political points.
Montana's Attorney General, Steve Bullock, testified today in front of a Senate hearing on the likely effects of the SCOTUS' recent Citizens United decision.
Bullock warned that it's at the state and local level where we may most keenly feel the impact of Citizens United, and illustrated that point with Montana's early history when copper kings and political corruption ruled the day. Local elections are cheap and plentiful, and unrestricted corporate money threatens not only our state officeholders, they threaten the independence of state-level courts.
Not long ago, I read a story about five people who managed a piece of land for about a million shareholders. For a variety of reaons, most notably the owners needed money, the managers decided to lease the mineral rights.
Bear in mind, the shareholders were divided over the advisability of the lease.
Nonetheless, the five got together to strike an agreement regarding the terms of lease and the minimum price.
During the meeting, it was clear that one of the five opposed the lease. Without a great deal of discussion, it was also clear that three of the five seem to agree that a minimum bid of, let's say, $250,000.00 was acceptable, while the fifth said the minimum bid should be, say, $350,000.00.
As the lease was subject to a recorded vote, the outlyer made a motion: Lease the mineral rights for for $350,000.00 and not a penny less. None of the others liked the motion and did not second it. And, the proposal to lease for $350,000.00 died.
So, later, when the time came to vote on a motion to lease the rights for $250,000.00, what did the sponsor of the $350K motion do?
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock has launched an investigation into the American Police Force, following news that the APF's lead figure is a convicted felon with a history of fraud.
Bullock's office has issued a civil investigative demand which orders that Hardin officials produce all documents related to their dealings with the American Police Force and its representative Michael Hilton.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that convicted criminals don't have a "constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files."
Fortunately, relatively few people will be negatively impacted by the decision - 47 states and federal government already have laws "providing access to post-conviction DNA testing" - but it seems like an odd stance to take. Justice Stevens, in his dissent:
The State of Alaska possesses physical evidence that, if tested, will conclusively establish whether respondent William Osborne committed rape and attempted murder. If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence. If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice. The DNA test Osborne seeks is a simple one, its cost modest, and its results uniquely precise. Yet for reasons the State has been unable or unwilling to articulate, it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.
Doesn't the Supreme Court think it has an obligation to ensure that justice is carried in the country's court system? And frankly, there's a pervasive problem surrounding prosecutors fighting DNA analysis in these cases. The New York Times:
A recent analysis of 225 DNA exonerations by Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found that prosecutors opposed DNA testing in almost one out of five cases. In many of the others, they initially opposed testing but ultimately agreed to it. In 98 of those 225 cases, the DNA test identified the real culprit.
The mind reels. Blocking DNA testing is not about the money; in the SCOTUS case in question, Osborne offered to pay for the test himself. And it's certainly not about justice. Innocent convicts can be freed, and the real culprit can still be convicted for the crimes.
And DNA testing is the only sure method of forensic science. That is, convictions based on other forensic methods - fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting analyses, etc - aren't based on scientific fact. At least, that's what a recent National Academy of Sciences study reported:
For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.
This is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which on Wednesday called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly critical to American jurisprudence.
The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.
The report concludes that the deficiencies pose "a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice," imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield innocent people from wrongful convictions.
It would seem, then, that the SCOTUS would have a vested interest that all defendants - including those already convicted - should have full access to the DNA evidence in their case for testing. The court, after all, has the obligation to ensure that all citizens have a right to due process in the law.
On a slightly different note, while many prosecutors are (apparently) attempting to save their professional reputations by preventing citizens from using a valid scientific method to challenge their convictions, it would behoove current state attorney generals - especially Montana's Steve Bullock - to ensure that their crime labs are fully cognizant of the problems of forensic sciences. Montana should be especially sensitive, of course, because we've already been burnt by an overzealous (incompetent? corrupt?) crime lab director, Arnold Melnikoff, who used fantastic and invented statistics based on inexact hair analysis to ramrod innocent men into jail.
A solid Crime Lab based on hard science not only ensures that the right people go to jail, it'll both salvage the reputation of Montana's judicial reputation and ensure that convictions in the state won't be as subject to costly challenges. While Steve Bullock's nomination to head the state's Crime Lab, Dave McAlpin, is a smart political appointment - the Crime Lab director, after all, needs to navigate both the state bureaucracy and the legislature - McAlpin lacks any forensics experience. It's a fair question to ask, then, what Bullock and McAlpin plan to do in reaction to the National of Academy of Sciences report, to ensure that only the best scientific work is performed at the crime lab and used in prosecuting Montana's legal cases...
I missed this last week, but Andrea Peacock in the Missoula Independent has an analysis of the WR Grace trial. In short, it appears the prosecution had set itself a difficult task with the nature of its charges and that the defense - with some help from Justice Molloy - sowed enough doubt in the prosecution's case while maintaining empathy with the residents of Libby to win the case.
But, again, there's no doubt the mines in Libby killed hundreds of people, and hundreds more have been given death sentences. And there's not much doubt WR Grace executives knew what was going on. Justice has not been served.
Peacock:
Norita asks if the verdicts can be appealed. I tell her that while they can't, there's still the possibility of state charges on homicide. But she has no appetite for this. "I think we'll just go on with our lives," she says. "Let it all go behind us."
During the trial, an occasional posse of journalists gathered for lunch at the Union Club to swap impressions. At one point when Gayla and Norita joined us, Andrew Schneider commented he was tired of writing about Libby, and I fully understood how he felt. But I also had a pretty good idea what Gayla's response would be: "I'm tired of living with it, but I've got five friends dying right now. There were six, but one passed away on Sunday."
It never was Gayla Benefield's or Norita's or Les Skramstad's job to get justice for Libby. It was the job of the EPA and Department of Justice. It was the duty of Montana's media. And it remains the responsibility of the Montana Attorney General.
Montana law allows that, "A person commits the offense of negligent homicide if the person negligently causes the death of another human being."
As of early 2007, there were 274 people on Libby's self-kept scorecard of asbestos casualties-this includes 33 cases of mesothelioma identified by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (mesothelioma is a rare lung cancer associated exclusively with asbestos exposure), as well as miners, miners' wives, miners' children and scores of people who had no connection to the mine at all-they simply lived in Libby. Given the latency period of asbestos related diseases-which can stretch for as long as 40 years-the community will likely be burying people whose lives were shortened by the contamination Grace left lying around town well into the middle of this century.
Just because the rest of us are tired of the tragedy is no excuse. There are an awful lot of people still waiting for judgment day.
You can contact Montana State Attorney General, Steve Bullock, and ask him to pursue a case against the corporate executives who killed hundreds in Libby. You can write him:
Department of Justice
PO Box 2013401
Helena, Montana 59620
First, as the word early in the campaign claimed -- that the Republican party would be working hard to win this race -- has come to pass. The state GOP has sunk $388K into Tim Fox.
But to what avail?
The Billings Gazetteendorsed Steve Bullock, largely on the "depth and breadth" of his experience. Also, Bullock's campaign was about his "vision" for the office:
Bullock's campaign to date has focused on a broader vision of the attorney general's job. He wants to beef up law enforcement resources for preventing Internet crimes. He supports enforcing Montana's seat belt law as a "primary" offense, just like any other traffic law. He wants to ensure that all felony DUI offenders get effective treatment and favors intervening before the fourth offense - the point at which Montana law now mandates treatment. Bullock said he wants to expand the attorney general's efforts to protect Montana consumers, particularly in preventing fraud against senior citizens.
The Gazette noted, as has been noted here numerous times, Tim Fox' campaign seems to solely centered on "sex offenders who prey on children." And it's not like Bullock promises to go soft on child molesters.
The Great Falls Tribuneendorsed Steve Bullock, also on Bullock's experience. Additionally, the GFT was turned off by Fox' negative campaigning:
We're inclined toward Bullock based on his background, his positions on a few issues and on some of Fox's advertising claims, parts of which are misleading and play the xenophobe card a little too coyly.
On that last point, we'd say only that we don't view spending six years of a 15-year career practicing law back East as a detriment for a Montana native who also worked as a private attorney in Montana and as an assistant attorney general under Joe Mazurek.
To the contrary, it gives Bullock a broader experience that should serve Montanans well as attorney general.
And if we can make a side point here: We're growing tired of the you're-not-from-Montana-unless-you-were-born-here-and-never-left attacks in politics. Not only is Bullock from Montana, but he has worked here most of his life.
The implication in other ads that Bullock might be soft on sex crimes or on gun rights also are misleading.
Who said negative campaigning doesn't have consequences? And I've argued this before, Tim Fox had an opportunity to discuss law-enforcement issues and philosophy, something Bullock was eager to do. Such a campaign would have benefitted everybody in the state, liberals and conservatives alike. Instead we were treated to a dog-and-pony show that didn't tell us anything about Tom Fox' views on the law.
Sure the MSU-B poll showed a Bullock lead in this campaign, but it also showed Obama with a 4-point edge, when Montana's stalwart pollster, Mason-Dixon, had McCain by 4. One thing's for certain in this race: it'll be decided at the ballot box, and the Montana GOP is throwing everything they've got at Steve Bullock, including that %$#!@ ad that uses this blog as a source for false information...
By the way, that MSU-B poll contains a number of goodies. Unmentioned in my post last night about the gubernatorial race are the poll results for the Land Board races, and, according to MSU-B, Democrats are sittin' pretty:
The poll also had Democrats leading in three of the four remaining top statewide races, with no polling data available for the superintendent of Public Instruction race.
The MSU-Billings poll shows Linda McCulloch leading incumbent Republican Secretary of State Brad Johnson by 40.6 percent to 34.6 percent, with 21 percent undecided. Democrat Monica Lindeen leads Republican Duane Grimes in the race for state auditor by a margin of 41.1 percent to 34.6 percent, with 24.3 percent undecided. Democrat Steve Bullock leads Republican Tim Fox in the race for attorney general by a margin of 45.1 to 37.6 percent, with 17.3 percent undecided.
The polls also showed that 42.6% of respondents planned to vote Democratic for their local state House representative -- up from 34% in 2006 -- and two points higher than those planning to vote Republican.
That's good news, but there's a lot of uncertainty to this poll. For one, the margin of error is pretty high because of the sample size, and there's a lot of undecided voters out there. And a majority of Montanans could still vote Democratic for legislative races, and we'd still see a Republican majority if the wrong races turn out the wrong way.
If anything, this should be a big red flag for anyone out there espousing progressive values; if we relax now and don't work our tails off to get the word and the vote out, we could wake up to a nasty surprise next Wedneday morning.
Unfortunately data on the Superintendent's race isn't available. (There was a sampling error.) That's a shame, largely because I can't think of a more lopsided race as far as experience, ability and intelligence are concerned, and, frankly, the future of Montana's schools are at stake. Needless to say, Pogie feels the same way. Of course Don's a teacher, so he actually cares about this race.
Juneau's credentials are impressive, starting with degrees from Montana State University, Harvard's Graduate School of Education and the University of Montana School of Law.
She's been a classroom teacher, a law clerk at the state Supreme Court and most recently Director of Indian Education at OPI.
She is familiar with the department's operations, and she has a good grasp of its role.
The Republican nominee for the office, Elaine Sollie Herman, says she has four perspectives on education in Montana: first as a student in tiny Broadview and in Billings; as a teacher with a degree from MSU; as a "customer" with a daughter who was educated in Helena; and as a taxpayer.
Heh. Oh, and Herman hasn't worked as a teacher since...when? The mid-1980s?
Anyway. Things are looking up, but we still need to do our final push to get the vote out before next week. So...what are you waiting for?
Yesterday, the Helena IRendorsed Steve Bullock for state attorney general. It came down to two things: experience, and Fox' campaign tactics:
That's why we're endorsing Bullock, a candidate who has represented the people of Montana before the Montana Supreme Court about three times as often as his opponent, has handled a great variety of legal issues for the Justice Department and in private practice, and has prepared attorney general's opinions that have the force of law unless overturned by the courts.
We also were disappointed to see that a recent television ad for Fox, who had told us he wouldn't run a partisan campaign for what is essentially a nonpartisan office. The ad was worded in such a way as to falsely imply that Bullock was from out of state, did not back Second Amendment right, and is against the death penalty.
Heck, Fox' general election campaign has been a joke, a two-note tuba blurting "kiddie sex" and "guns" at anyone who can bear listening. The television ad was just Fox' campaign made manifest.
Incidentally, Bullock's second ad went right after Fox:
I have to say, the Democratic primary for this race was fantastic. It was a good, clean race with three qualified and worthy candidates discussing issues, experience, and ideas. It's a shame that spirit of debate couldn't translate to the general election, where Tim Fox polluted the political debate with a campaign alternating between lying and preying on voters' fears.
Only Steve Bullock has bothered to explain himself, his background, and his vision for the office, if elected. And only Bullock should be getting your vote.
(I'm not guessing at the motivation of station managers to keep running an ad that likely violates federal law; maybe they're reluctant to turn away advertising dollars. Whatever. Here's another theory... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Here's what Monty Wallis, the General Manager of the CBS Stations in Montana, has to say about the untrue Tim Fox ad in the Trib this AM:
"We got documentation from both sides, took a look at it, analyzed it," he said. "There's nothing here that I can see that is so substantially wrong or false that it would justify it being pulled from the air."
Wallis said the state's political parties tried to use him as a political pawn.
"I just don't like being put in the middle of these kinds of disputes," he said.
OK, lets take a look:
The advertisement says:
No wonder Bullock's against the death penalty. (And on screen: AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY)
They cite a 'post' from this website.
And what does the LITW post actually say:
Bullock: The death penalty is the law. As the attorney general, um, ultimately, it's your responsibility to enforce that law. So as long as we have it, I support it.
When something is so clearly untrue, why would the station's GM say something like that?
Maybe it's because he's a GOP donor. Wallis has maxed out to a Republican candidate for the State Senate in a race that his station covers...makes one wonder where this guy's coming from. Commissioner of Political Practices report.
Okay, the more I think about the Tim Fox television ad, the more it bugs me. They're using our good name! As a source for a lie about a good candidate! Serioiusly, that's going to be the introduction to Left in the West to thousands of Montanans across the state as they watch this dog. That's just not right.
I'm going to get on the phone and call the television stations around the state and ask 'em to pull the ad. Doesn't it violate federal law, anyway?
In case you want to join me, here are the names and numbers of the relevant media companies for you to call:
Charlie Henrich
Eagle Communications
(KECI and other Montana NBC stations-Missoula, Bozeman and Butte)
406-731-2063
Bruce Cummings
Max Media Montana
(KULR 8 Billings and KFBB Great Falls/Helena)
406-655-8558
Monty Wallis
Montana's News Station
(CBS affiliates in every market-Glendive, Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell)
406-252-5611
Kathy Ernst
Beartooth Communications
(Beartooth NBC-Helena, Great Falls, Havre)
406-457-1212
D*mn it. Matt beat me by about 5 minutes posting about the Gazette article on Tim Fox' attack ad on Steve Bullock using our blog as a source. Ugh.
The ad is posted below the fold.
Anyhow, in the piece, the state GOP's Bridger Pierce justified the claim saying Bullock's interview showed Bullock has a "personal and moral problem with the death penalty."
Way to go, Pierce. Take a thoughtful reply about a serious and complex issue, bend it out of proportion, misconstrue it, and then use it in an attack ad. And quote this blog as your source. What's with state party staffers recently? Is there something in the water? Or is the organization taking its lead from the top?
During the primary season, I remember hearing Steve Bullock talk multiple times about the death penalty and generally sounding like someone who is OK with the death penalty in theory, occasionally has problems with it in practice, and gets nervous talking about it in a state with a pretty vocal abolition movement.
How did I spot that? Well, I fall in basically the same place.
How much did I think about this? Not a ton -- in large measure because as Bullock has emphasized repeatedly, the Attorney General is not a legislative actor, but an executive one. The AG manages an operation of limited resources to focus on different priorities. And Bullock has always been pretty clear that his interest is in managing the state's legal operation, not being a mini-Governor using the bully pulpit of the office to try to convince the legislature to act on his agenda.
Because of that -- and because of a thoughtful, nuanced interview he gave to Jay here at Left in the West -- he is being attacked in a dishonest ad. Jennifer McKee nicely summarizes just how dishonest it is:
Among other things, the ad claims Bullock, also a Helena lawyer, is "against the death penalty."
Bullock has been repeatedly quoted on the radio and in Montana newspapers as saying he supports the death penalty and would support it as attorney general.
In documentation supporting the ad, the GOP cites an interview Bullock gave with the blog, Left in the West. There, Bullock said several times that as attorney general he would support the law.
So where does the GOP argument come from? From stuff like this:
He also said that if anyone hurt his daughter he "would want to kill them but I'm not sure the state should." Elsewhere in the interview, Bullock said he would be neither surprised nor disappointed if the death penalty were overturned.
Hell, I'm in favor of the death penalty, just like Bullock, but I'd also be neither surprised nor disappointed if it was repealed.
Questions of life and death and the state are complicated. They can be complicated legally and are inevitably complicated morally. That's why a bunch of progressives are upset with John McCain's dismissiveness of a mother's health as a justification for late-term abortions. And that's why a lot of us who favor the death penalty in theory also wouldn't be super upset if the penalty went away.
In fact, I think it says a lot more about the Republican Party that they'd be so flippant about taking someone's life than it does about Bullock that he appreciates the import of that decision.
Sadly, though, despite pretty clear evidence that the Republicans aren't just distorting, but that they are outright lying, Montana media stations have yet to pull the ad. It's high-time they do so.
So both Steve Bullock and Tim Fox debuted new commercials. They're about what you'd expect: Bullock offers a positive message about himself, his record, and what he'd do as State Attorney General; Tim Fox talks guns and pederasts.
The interesting thing? Jennifer McKee did an analysis of the candidate's ads to parse the rhetoric and report on who's fibbing in their statements to Montana voters. Again, it's about what you'd expect: Bullock is straight up; Fox lies his *ss off:
"The assertion that Bullock doesn't think it's the 'attorney general's job to protect our gun rights' is misleading....
Both Bullock and Fox have come out strongly in favor of gun rights. In July, Fox released an 18-point plan outlining his stance on guns and challenging Bullock to respond. Bullock responded with a letter to Fox saying he agreed entirely with 13 of the points, found a few of Fox's points confusing and concluded that two of the points involved powers the attorney general does not have.
Bullock has never said he doesn't think it's the attorney general's job to protect gun rights, although he did state in his letter to Fox that most of Fox's proposals involved new laws and that the attorney general has no power to enact laws, only to lobby the Legislature.
The ad's statement that Bullock "opposes new laws to crack down on sexual predators" may be technically true, but is misleading in that it doesn't mention that Bullock, like Fox, has presented plans to protect children from predators.
In Bullock's plan, he says Montana doesn't need "new laws," but better ways of enforcing the ones already on the books....
Given that both men have these plans, the ad's statement that only Fox will "crack down on sex predators" is incorrect.
It kind of reminds you a little of the presidential campaign, where McCain -- apparently bankrupt for ideas -- substitutes low-road smear tactics for policy or issue debate. And in this race, Fox also substitutes good, relevant policy with lurid tales of child molestation and stokes fears for our guns.
Is this all you got, Tim? I mean, I'd love to write about this race, but only one man is actually campaigning, talking issues, and mulling the office. Seriously, this was supposed to be a marquee race, but frankly, I found even Conrad Burns' 2006 Senate campaign to be more substantive, and that's not saying a whole lot. This is an opportunity to discuss differing philosophies on the death penalty, drug policy, the use of the land board, the whole kebang. Instead, we got Tim Fox the carnival barker trying to lure us into the sideshow.
Okay, so, yes, the big news from last night was the gubernatorial debate. But what you may have missed was that the two Attorney General candidates -- Steve Bullock and Tim Fox -- had a little debate, too.
Fox, who's running on a campaign of guns and sex predators, went down his usual path and accused current AG Mike McGrath of not posting pictures of sex offenders on the state's website. "Sixty percent of the photographs are missing," Fox said. "That's something I want to fix."
Only...
Contacted by The Gazette to clarify the number of photos missing, the Department of Justice said of the 1,767 sex offenders listed on its Web site, four didn't have photographs.
Oops! Red alert! That's 0.2 percent not 60!
Caught in an "indiscretion," Fox later blustered his way around his...er, misstatement.
"It's obviously good news that the Department of Justice got that done, and I'm sorry it took the current attorney general eight years to get the photographs on the registry," Fox said later in the day. "On my watch, we won't let this kind of negligence occur."
Fox claims that his campaign staffers counted up the missing pics at the beginning of the year, and found 228 registries without photos. First, if that number is accurate, that's just under 13 percent of registries missing photos, not 60. Second...I dunno, folks. Fox hasn't showed himself to be trustworthy. How do we know he didn't pull the "228" out of his *ss?
Looks like Fox is following the lead of his party's presidential candidate and making sh*t up on the fly. I guess that's what you do if you don't have the qualifications or ideas that befit the office.
Oh, and you can drop a coin into Bullock's coffers while you're at it.
