I certainly don’t mean to start yet another fight with the 4and20 blackbirds blog over the relative merits of Senator Tester and Representative Rehberg, but it’s hard to overlook the analysis offered today which suggests that Senator Tester is somehow trailing in the Senate race by a few points because he’s taken money from the “wrong constituency.”

It’s not only same tired argument that’s been trotted every few months, but it fundamentally ignores the dynamics of this race and the role of money in contemporary politics. While it would be wonderful if Senator Tester could choose not to take donations from people affiliated with corporations at all, unilaterally disarming against Denny Rehberg and letting him impose his idiotic worldview on the Senate for six years would be far more damaging than taking money from banks, law firms, cable companies, and the League of Conservation Voters—who are by far Tester’s largest contributors.

It’s also simply unfair to suggest that Tester is somehow beholden to big banks, and just willfully blind to suggest that Rehberg wouldn’t be far, far worse. There’s a reason that Rehberg is getting the support of Citizens United—and it’s not his position on the Constitution.

There’s a relatively simply set of reasons that Rehberg is marginally ahead in the polls. Montana is a state that leans Republican—and Rehberg has more incumbent advantage going into the race. In fact, rather than suggesting “that something fundamental is amiss” in the Tester campaign,  the fact the Tester is within 2-3 points, given a 8 point GOP advantage in the state, suggest that his campaign is right where it needs to be to be competitive.

To remain competitive with the massive influx of Super PAC money that Represenative Rehberg will have at his “uncoordinated” disposal, Senator Tester will likely need to outraise Rehberg by 2:1.

From the outset, winning this seat was going to be a challenge for Tester, but eschewing large donations and driving around the state in a VW wagon fueled only by self-righteousness and biodiesel would make it impossible for him to win.

Ideological and financial purity may warm the heart, but they certainly doesn’t win elections. For my money, I think it’s in the interests of Montanans to send a Senator back to Washington who doesn’t believe that corporations are people, who believes in the minimum wage and the rights of workers, and who fights for the middle class.

While Representative Rehberg was voting entirely for the sake of the press yesterday, Senators Tester and Baucus were working to do something to restore fairness to America’s tax system—voting to end massive tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. The measure was designed to encourage development of alternative energy and reduce the deficit:

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., would target more than $2 billion in annual tax subsidies to the so-called Big Five oil companies — BP, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips.

Had the measure passed Congress, about half of the $24 billion in savings over 10 years would have been reinvested in tax breaks for biodiesel, wind, cellulosic ethanol and energy-efficiency programs.The other half would have been used to reduce the federal deficit.

Now Senate Republicans who killed the measure argue that these ending these tax breaks to oil companies would increase the price of gas at the pump. As is usually the case, though, they ignored the evidence. The Congressional Research Service says that’s simply not true:

For the purpose of economic analysis, the repeal of the Section 199 deduction is equivalent to an increase in the tax on corporate profit. It is widely accepted that a proportional change in taxes on profit affects neither the firm’s incremental costs or revenues, and therefore does not change its behavior with respect to output.  Since output does not change, there is little reason to believe that the price of oil, or gasoline, consumers face will increase.

No one here argues with the idea that industry should be able to make a profit, but it’s hard to accept a system which allows massive, multinational oil companies to pay a much lower rate of taxes than small businesses pay. I think that the five big oil companies have probably reached a point at which they no longer need tax incentives to survive. I suspect they’ll survive with $125 billion in annual profits just fine.

But it was those corporations that Senate Republicans voted to defend yesterday. Not Main Street, not family-run businesses, but massive corporations who recorded $137 billion in profits last year. It’s little wonder that Republicans have received 88 per cent of oil and gas contributions this election cycle.

Does anyone have any doubt about how Representative Rehberg would have voted yesterday, given the $450,000 he has received from the oil and gas industry during his do-nothing career, including $141,000 in this cycle alone?

While Representative Rehberg would like to frame his ‘no’ vote on the Ryan budget today as some kind of stand on behalf of Montana’s seniors, his continued failure to present any alternatives is yet another sign of his willingness to put politics ahead of practical solutions. It’s so bad that even the rabidly conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page called him out on it today:

Mr. Rehberg thinks he’s inoculating himself on Medicare, and he even issued a press release saying “I simply refuse to gamble with something as important as Medicare.” The real gamble is to continue on the current path that will ruin Medicare, and Mr. Rehberg’s vote suggests he’s from the remaindered pile of the GOP’s Tom DeLay status-quo wing.

Rehberg voted against seven budget proposals in the past twenty four hours. The only budget proposal he’s supported in the past year was the House’s radical Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan, which would have devastated Medicare while risking economic calamity, according to conservative Norman Ornstein:

Best Picture: Most Irresponsible Legislative Proposal of the Year. Here the clear winner is the balanced budget constitutional amendment, which has been endorsed by all 47 Senate Republicans. …. But a constitutional requirement to balance the federal budget is a virtual guarantee that we will have economic catastrophes that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Here is the problem, which should be evident to anybody who has taken Econ 101. When the economy sags, the initial remedy is what we call countercyclical policy — counter the downturn with a jump-start via economic stimulus. Every major country acted in 2008 to do just that, and by consensus avoided a global disaster far more serious than we got.

That’s Representative Rehberg: casting a cynically, politically-motivated vote designed to appeal to Montana’s seniors, despite his commitment to a budget proposal which would have been far worse for them.

Writing about Representative Rehberg always presents an interesting challenge. He never actually does anything, so you have to discern his beliefs from votes he takes on other member’s bills and amendments. Yesterday was another day which revealed just how Representative Rehberg thinks, as he voted against online privacy for employees.

Rehberg voted yesterday against an amendment which would have protected employees from being required to reveal their Facebook passwords to employers. While it may seem difficult to imagine that any employer would do that,  Representative Rehberg should know better. It’s happened here in Montana, most notably when the City of Bozeman briefly asked for online passwords from job applicants before a firestorm of controversy erupted.

It seems that Representative Rehberg is more interested in the rights of corporations than your right to privacy. Given Rehberg’s proclivity to tweet rather than govern, I’d say that his employees—the people of Montana—deserve his online passwords after this vote.

My guess? It’s probably abcd or boatbad.

We’ve discussed the disastrously bad idea that is Dennis Rehberg’s proposed federal land grab of Montana’s northern border more than a few times , but it’s got to be even worse for the wannabe-Senator when the criticism is coming from within his own party.

Steve Daines, who backed out of the Senate race to defer to Congressman Rehberg blasted Rehberg’s support of H.R. 1505 today on the Voices of Montana radio show:

I share concerns as we see—as we deal with the threats abroad, here. But also ensuring that we do not compromise the rights of the American people. And, you know, there’s been a couple of pieces of legislation out there—one related to border security and so forth, here, where it’s going to allow the federal government to have what I believe to be more power than needed here, you know, extending 100 miles south of [Montana’s northern] border here, which puts a pretty big dent here in Montana. And when I start seeing those things, I realize we’ve got people back in Washington that don’t understand the importance here of states’ rights, and the importance here of ensuring that—I want to see Montanans taking care of the state. We don’t need to just have a bunch of federal bureaucrats and federal authorities here usurping the rights and the authorities here we have here in the state of Montana.

Montanans of all political persuasions—left and right—know that this is a terrible bill, just as we knew that REAL ID and the Patriot Act were incredible, unwarranted extensions of federal power over civil liberties.

Why can’t Dennis Rehberg ever seem to see that these bills are wrong?

I think it’s wonderful news that Montanans who identify as Libertarians will have the opportunity to vote in the Senate race for someone who represents their views. While I certainly don’t share many views in common with the Libertarian party, they do represent a substantial portion of the Montana electorate—and it’s great news that retired Missoula businessman Jerry McConnell has filed to run.

McConnell’s entry into the race certainly presents a bit of a problem for Dennis Rehberg, who despite a desperate lurch to the TEA Party side of his party since 2010, has and continues to advocate some positions that should certainly give Libertarians pause.

Most importantly, Rehberg has been a fiscal disaster, sitting on the sidelines while the Republican Congress and President Bush massively increased the nation’s debt.

Rehberg himself was one of the worst offenders in the Congress, ranking as the member of Congress with the most earmark requests. Even Montana Republicans agree that Representative Rehberg was one of the worst offenders. Even Rehberg disagreed with himself, telling the Great Falls Tribune in 2010 that “earmarks are not the problem. They direct money that already exists within the program to a particular area, because who knows their district more than we do? That’s our opportunity to make our argument to our colleagues. It doesn’t add to the budget.”

Along the way, the “fiscally conservative” Rehberg voted himself give pay raises, increasing his salary by almost $29,000 annually.

On civil liberties, Rehberg’s record is even worse, most notably in his support for the Patriot Act. While he finally voted against this odious piece of legislation in 2011, Rehberg repeatedly voted to authorize the act which dramatically increased government power at the expense of civil liberties.

He’s famous for supporting the REAL ID program, anathema to Libertarian and civil liberties groups. And Montanans of all political stripes.

Oh, and he’s decided that the federal government should ride roughshod over state law, granting the “the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders”

Two things have become abundantly clear in Dennis Rehberg’s tenure in office. One is that he is largely free of principle, given his amazing number of flips and flops while in office. The second? He’s a big-government, corporate Republican everywhere except in his ads and press releases.

Montanans interested in preserving individual freedoms would do well to look to another candidate in 2012.

It seems Representative Rehberg only has the appearance of fiscal conservatism when it comes to giving tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans and when threatening to cut Pell Grants for poor and middle class students.

When it comes to the people of his hometown, though, Mr. Rehberg is perfectly willing to waste money. It cost the City (and taxpayers) of Billings $21,000 to defend themselves against his frivolous lawsuit against firefighters:

Christie Roberts of Billings, research director for Montanans for Tester, filed a records request with the city of Billings on Monday. On Tuesday, Deputy City Attorney Craig Hensel responded by fax, saying the city spent $20,761.60 defending the case.

Hensel explained that the lawsuit was forwarded to the city’s insurance pool, the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority, which hired Michele Braukmann, of the Moulton Bellingham law firm, to defend the city.

Hensel said the city was billed for 151.80 hours of Braukmann’s time, for a total of $20,638.50, plus $123.10 in costs.

The hypocrisy here is stunning on so many levels. A self-proclaimed champion of tort reform frivolously sues his local fire department for trying to save his property, and they’re left with the bill.

That’s your Dennis Rehberg.

Politico had a very interesting piece today regarding our senior Senator and K Street Lobbyists.

Democrats on K Street are warning their corporate clients: Give to Republican challengers in the 2012 election, and you’ll regret it come tax reform time.

Lobbyists are getting that message from allies of powerful Democrats such as Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is closely watching support for Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican challenging Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). Baucus supporters fear that if Rehberg ousts Tester, Baucus could be next to face a serious Republican challenge in the state.

One K-Streeter close to the Baucus operation said the senator considers a gift to Rehberg a contribution against him. Another Democratic lobbyist told a client to take his name off a Rehberg fundraising event because it would be hurtful to his company, according to sources.

The case K-Streeters are making to their clients: It will be a hard sell next year to get Baucus’s support on business-friendly tax perks set to expire or the Bush-era tax cuts that must get through his committee.

The game of hardball is a bold example of a powerful chairman willing to leverage his power to protect his party’s majority, his home-state colleague and potentially his own seat.

You can read the entire article here.  While many members of the Democratic Party may not always agree with Sen. Baucus and positions he has taken in the past, it’s ridiculous to argue that he is not whole-heartily dedicated the Montana Democratic Party.

Whether it’s bundling money for Democratic candidates in the state or using “hardball” tactics to protect Senator Tester from a tsunami of K Street money, one thing is clear: Sen. Baucus will go to bat for Montana’s Democrats.  And that should be applauded.

Catch the Oscars this evening?  Well, Rehberg made at least two appearances during the 3 hour program.  The ad called out Rehberg on the issue of public land access, which is becoming an increasing problematic issue for the Congressman.  Remember these three spots?

Rehberg: Public land is my “Privately owned land” and No Rehberg Land Grab and No Rehberg Land Grab 2.

People like The Montana Hunters and Anglers and John Gibson are going to continue drawing attention to Rehberg’s disdain for public land and water access.  Seems like a winning strategy.

Soon as possible, I’ll post this evening’s TV spot.  No luck finding it online, yet.

UPDATE

Here’s the ad that aired last night.  It was paid for by the Montana Wildlife Federation.

In his analysis of the funds raised in the 2012 Montana Senate race, Matt Gouras pointed out a detail that has to make Representative Rehberg nervous. It seems that he’s having an awfully hard time raising money from the people he ostensibly represents:

Tester has also been winning the money war in contributions collected from Montana _ by a large amount. Tester reeled in $840,000 from Montana individual contributors, while Rehberg collected $286,000, according to the reports.

While I get as tired as anyone about the focus on money rather than issues in modern political campaigns, this is the kind of number that shows a campaign is struggling to connect with voters. Of course, it’s hard to connect with voters when you’re dodging them at every opportunity–and make an embarrassing gaffe every time you do speak with them.