PPP just published a Montana poll which shows Steve Bullock and Rick Hill tied in a November matchup at 39-39. Despite the tie, Bullock is both better liked and known that Representative Hill:

Bullock is more popular than Hill. 34% of voters have a positive opinion of him to 21% with a negative one. Hill’s under water with 20% of voters rating him favorably to 28% with an unfavorable view. Usually that kind of disparity in favorability numbers would have Bullock ahead overall but of course Montana’s a Republican state and Hill’s taking the GOP vote 77-8, allowing him to achieve the tie.

The other Republican candidates simply haven’t gained any traction in the race, no matter how well they do in TEA Party straw polls. Hill leads the field with 33%. Ken Miller checks in at 12%, with Corey Stapleton coming in at 7%.

The race is really in the same position it has been for months. While 35% of likely Republican primary voters are undecided, it’s almost unimaginable that all will throw their support behind one of Hill’s challengers.

With six minor candidates to divide up the nullification wing of the Republican Party, Hill should coast to victory in June.

Today was a busy today in Montana politics, with both filing deadlines and the latest deadline for reporting campaign finance. As always, while there are certainly more important issues than how candidates raise and spend money, the numbers do provide a sense of where each campaign is—and how effective it will be going forward.

Governor

It’s got to be of some concern to Republicans that Rick Hill—whose only real advantage as a candidate is a presumed ability to raise money—is lagging so far behind Bullock.

Corey Stapleton’s reports continue to be mysteries—he’s no longer logging any real campaign expenses and continues to lend himself money in what is increasingly a quixotic bid to take 3rd place.

Jim Lynch’s campaign continues to be on life support, and Neil Livingstone continues to lend his campaign massive amounts to money (up to $60,000 now) for no discernible purpose other than enriching D.C.-based political consultants.

It seems that only Ken Miller is able to raise money from actual contributors. He poses the only real threat to Hill in this race, but with a fractured anti-Hill field, Miller seems unlikely to get enough support to win the race.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Democratic race for Attorney General continues to be the most closely contested battle, both in terms of passion and fundraising. Once again, Jesse Laslovich slightly outraised his opponent—and has not had to loan his campaign any money, unlike Bucy, who has donated $10,000 to her campaign. Look for this race to stay tight right up until the primary.

On the Republican side, it only looks close because Senator Shockley has donated a massive amount of money to his campaign. It seems the Republican establishment has chosen to back Fox, presumably for his willingness to embrace odious strategies to seek election.

Democratic candidate for  Governor Steve Bullock will be announcing his pick for Lieutenant Governor tomorrow in Great Falls at 11:30, and there has been a great deal of speculation about who will get the nod.

While I don’t have any particular insight or knowledge (and my track record hasn’t been stellar), my guess is that he will name John Walsh as his running mate.

If so, Walsh is an excellent pick—and one that should shore up Bullock’s already excellent chances of winning the race.

If not, I hope I’m as enthusiastic about the person he ultimately does choose.

There are a lot of reasons that I’m supporting Steve Bullock to become the next governor of Montana, but none are more important than his decision to defend Montana’s century-old restrictions on corporate donations in elections. The latest ad from the Bullock campaign makes the case for the importance of this decision, in which Bullock was the single Attorney General across the nation to defend his state’s law.

While Attorney General Bullock is  reminding Montanans about real achievements in his office, his Republican rivals are running around the state trying to prove just how out of touch with the mainstream they are.  Instead of grandstanding about nullifying federal laws, Bullock took action to defend Montana’s law and crafted an argument the Court could accept.

While the corporate-controlled Supreme Court may end up ruling against the people of Montana, it’s worth remembering John Paul Stevens’s stinging dissent:

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Stevens—and Bullock—are right, of course, and Montanans would be well-served choosing a governor who knows the importance of limiting corporate influence on elections.

Lee Newspapers featured an interesting story today focusing on the fact that both candidates for the Democratic nomination for Governor support the XL pipeline.  This shouldn’t be of any real surprise – virtually every major Democratic player in the state supports the pipeline: Tester, Baucus, Schweitzer, and Bullock.

What made the piece interesting was the bit about Otter Creek.  Apparently, Larry Jent has decided it’s worthwhile to take a jab or two at Bullock.  I’m not really sure what Larry’s strategy is here, but it sure is interesting.

In a news release, Jent also called on Bullock to outline some specific positions on energy-related issues.

“Steve Bullock and I differ on the important issue of the role of coal in Montana’s economic future,” Jent said. “I support the development of the Otter Creek (coal) tracts; Steve voted against that while on the Land Board.

“I spoke for and voted for (the) Montana Alberta Tie Line (MATL) this past year in the Senate. Does anyone know where Steve stands on energy?”

Some weeks make the difference between politicians and public servants incredibly clear. The former play cynical political games that rely on divisiveness and distraction while the latter analyze policy for its implications on the lives of those they serve. This week, Representative Dennis Rehberg and Attorney General Steve Bullock made the distinction between these two types quite clear.

Responding to the Republican effort to strip environmental protections from the border of the United States, Attorney General Steve Bullock sent a letter to John Boehner and Harry Reid, articulating why HR 1505, Rehberg’s federal land grab, will not only harm law enforcement efforts but damage cooperation with and the sovereignty of Montana’s tribal governments:

As Montana’s chief law enforcement official, I am very aware of the importance of the security of our northern border. On a daily basis, sworn law enforcement officials from my agency, along with scores of their counterparts from local jurisdictions, work closely with federal agents to ensure the security of Montana’s 545-mile border with Canada.
But to be successful, this cannot be done through directives and mandates sent from Washington, D.C. Rather, law enforcement agencies–local, tribal, state and federal–work best through cooperation and collaboration from the ground up.

This proposed legislation would also reach all or parts of five of seven Indian
reservations in Montana. It should come as no surprise that proposed federal land grabs place serious strain upon the government-to-government relationship between the State of Montana and our Indian Nations. As a state we strive to work with the First Montanans in a way that respects their independence and sovereignty–values missing from this legislation.

That’s reasoned analysis of an issue not even considered by Representative Rehberg.

In contrast, our Representative, perhaps feeling the heat from his TEA Party base, offered a nonsensical amendment to the bill, one that would give local sheriffs ultimate authority over federal law enforcement:

Rehberg’s amendment would solve this turf war the correct way and the best way: let the county sheriff decide if and when DHS can enter his county to conduct its law enforcement operations. This puts the final decision under local control rather than under Washington executive control. The people elect their county sheriff to protect them. The sheriff should therefore decide what federal agencies and their employees do in his county.

While that amendment will certainly make Greg Hinkle’s heart flutter, it’s entirely at odds with the stated aim of HR 1505, which Rehberg claimed was intended to reduce inter-agency turf wars over jurisdiction. How anyone could imagine that  empowering local sheriffs to restrict federal law enforcement and border control could pass constitutional muster or reduce jurisdictional squabbles defies logic or explanation.

Caught between his desire to scrap environmental protections and Montanans who believe in federal and state cooperation, Rehberg waffled his way into an utterly incomprehensible position.

Of course, this kind of pandering is nothing new for Representative Rehberg, who supported REAL ID and the Patriot Act before opposing them.

It’s never about policy, but always about politics—and that’s the difference between leaders like Bullock and grandstanders like Rehberg.