The other day I wondered by Corey Stapleton would possible donate $90,000 to his own failed bid for governor. Today, the answer became more clear: because this fall he wants to help Democrats remind Montana voters just how unsuited for the governor’s chair Rick Hill is.

The ad, while incredibly awkwardly animated, isn’t really unfair. Everyone knows that Hill has other baggage he’d like voters to forget, so Stapleton is being more than fair to point out Hill’s policy failures. He did support a sales tax. He did turn Workers’ Comp into a mess. And he did make an obscene amount of amount with sweetheart real estate deals.

So thanks, Corey. You’re probably still not going to crack 10% in the primary, but we appreciate this ad.

Republican “candidate” for State Auditor Derek Skees raised an entirely unimpressive $1,280 from individuals in his last campaign finance report, which isn’t entirely unsurprising given his unorthodox and even secessionist views. What is surprising, however, is that almost half of that total came from the Daines family in Bozeman, with Republican House candidate Steve Daines and his wife each contributing a maximum donation of $310 for the race.

Can we assume that means Mr. Daines approves of Mr. Skees and his rather unique political viewpoints? It seems like a bold move to support a candidate who:

• opposed Social Security.
• supports a sales tax in Montana.
• is involved with the extremist John Birch movement.
• believes in a state’s right to allow slavery and human trafficking.

Surely an Internet entrepreneur as skilled as Mr. Daines could outsource a Google search to Asia before deciding to contribute to a candidate’s campaign.

It’s certainly troubling that someone who wants to represent all of Montana believes that someone as dangerous as Derek Skees would make a good choice for auditor. It seems fair not only to judge candidates by the company they keep, but by the candidates they support.

When the Democratic race for Attorney General began in earnest, I didn’t know who to support. Unlike people who follow politics professionally in Montana, I didn’t have a strong opinion about either Jesse Laslovich or Pam Bucy; I simply knew that Democrats were going to need a strong candidate to run against Tim Fox, who gave Steve Bullock a close race in 2008.

While each candidate has impressed me with professional qualifications and personal values, I’ve found the campaign waged online by supporters of Ms. Bucy to be unimaginably awful. I’ve written about this before, but the anonymous attacks haven’t come to an end. As the primary has gotten closer, the attacks have been more persistent, more personal, and more desperate.

It’s certainly not surprising that people affiliated with political campaigns anonymously comment on blogs and other online news sources. What has been surprising, however, is just how willing supporters of Ms. Bucy have been to attack Mr. Laslovich, a fellow Democrat who has remained entirely positive during the race.

And to believe that these are the uncoordinated responses of random people who happen to all visit a blog within minutes of a post at 10:00 p.m., each under a more ludicrous pseudonym than the commenter before, would be to believe that Karl Rove isn’t coordinating his Tester attack ads with Denny Rehberg.

I’ve said all along that I will support either candidate against Tim Fox in the general election, but that commitment is wavering. If supporting Ms. Bucy means supporting this kind of campaigning and the politics of personal destruction, I’m not sure I can do it.

Two qualified candidates with excellent resumes are facing off in the Democratic primary for Attorney General. It’s just terribly unfortunate that only one campaign is behaving that way.

I’m quite bad at finishing a series of blog posts – a Part 1 doesn’t always indicate the future existence of a Part 2. But this is any important one, and I’m spreading it out on purpose because Part 3 is awaiting critical developments.

So, why do we still need Tester and Obama? It’s pretty clear that our local Republicans have gone off the deep end, but on a national level, are Democrats any better that the GOP? And if they are better, can we expect any benefit for Montana? The answer is most certainly, yes, and not just because they might give us better judges.

Why? Because it is nearly inevitable that in the next six years, some more effort will have to be put in to controlling the national debt, as it has now surpassed our GDP. If the economy continues to grow, the time will come to reduce deficits to ensure that they remain manageable. As sovereign debt becomes less and less trustworthy, the need to do so will be felt more acutely. How we do that is a key consideration. And lets face the math – it will come either through higher taxes, or lower spending.

There is almost no doubt that Montanans in general will benefit from using higher taxes rather than lower spending. Why? Because as this helpful chart informs us, Montana, between 1990 and 2009, received from the Feds (minus taxes paid) the equivalent of almost two years worth of our GDP. That is enormous, and unsurprising. Montana has a sparse population but large infrastructure needs, and as long as people and goods need to go from Minnesota to Washington (two states contributing more to the national budget than they take), it will be in their best interest to subsidize our infrastructure.

But what that means is that budget cuts will affect Montana disproportionately, while tax cuts will have a disproportionately small effect. Obviously, the depth of that difference would be determined by where the taxes were raised or spending cut, but on average the effect of spending cuts would be about 47% greater than the effect of a tax hikes.

And finally, should Montana just bite the bullet because ultimately spending must come down? No. The British were kind enough to try that out for us, cutting top-rate taxes and slashing spending. No need for us to repeat the mistake. (There’s also little reason to believe that progressive voters need to repeat the British electoral mistake – punish the moderate incumbents by moving left and giving an election to the right wing).

I’m loyal to Obama and Tester partly because the stimulus they pushed got me a job, menial but certainly better than nothing, and then helped me get another. The evidence from Europe suggests that this is not merely a personal loyalty; there is evidence that stimulus was much better policy than austerity. That anyone can argue that there is no reason to support the party that pushed that crucial difference is beyond me.

An Anti-Endorsement

While an earlier post described a recent mailer as coming from the Laurie McKinnon campaign, the flier was specifically sent out by a group calling itself the Montana Growth Network, based in Red Lodge.

What is the Montana Growth Network? It’s yet another of Jason Priest’s fantasy organizations, sharing the same phone number, web host, and physical address as his very prestigious and entirely illusory “Montana Senate Policy Committee.”  Just another title for an organization of one, designed to collect donations from out of state corporate interests and justify newspaper publication.

Unfamiliar with Senator Priest? This video, in which he calls all liberals liars and compares the “progressive agenda” to a virus, is an instructive clip. You might remember he’s the “entrepreneur” who practiced vulture capitalism on those who accrue enormous debt in our broken health care system.

Just how many fake organizations does Senator Priest need to promote his misguided agenda? Given his credibility problems, I certainly understand his desire to hide his extremist agenda behind organizations designed to give him the appearance of credibility, but it seems that there might be some conflict of interest and some ethically shady grounds when an active legislator relies on secret donations to promote his political viewpoint.

Priest also claims that donations to the Montana Growth Network are tax-deductible, but the site never indicates what kind of non-profit status it has.

Who pays for the nakedly political Senate Policy and who pays for the allegedly non-partisan Growth Network?

As for Judge McKinnon, despite her efforts to paint herself as a non-partisan candidate, the evidence makes it clear she is anything but. It’s not just that Jason Priest supports her. Her own campaign sent out a letter from Judge Nels Swandal, who practically ran as an elephant he was so Republican in 2010.

I really don’t know Judge McKinnon well enough to make a judgment about her suitability for the Court, but it’s hard to imagine supporting someone Jason Priest is so enthusiastic about.

One of the great things about blogs is that they provide a forum for experts to provide more detailed information on subjects the media simply lacks the time to cover fully. A great example of that comes in the form of two posts by local immigration attorney Shahid Haque-Hausrath discussing the immigration records of Democratic Attorney General candidates Pam Bucy and Jesse Laslovich.

On Bucy:

I believe that the manner in which Pam Bucy handled this situation calls into question her interpretation of the privacy protections of the Montana Constitution, and her willingness to share confidential information with the federal government.  These are issues that are important to those who oppose state-level enforcement of immigration laws, but are also important to Montana in many other respects.  For instance, this may be of interest to those who are advocating for Montana’s medical marijuana laws.

In summary, I believe that Pam Bucy took conduct that was a very clear violation of the law, wrote new rules to seemingly prohibit the illegal conduct, but also created significant loopholes that would purport to legalize this very same conduct.

In the end, I view this as actually making our confidentiality protections worse — not better.  In the interest of bureaucratic administration, I believe Pam Bucy has set aside important privacy considerations under Montana law.

On Laslovich:

Jesse Laslovich voted on three relevant bills in 2005, four relevant bills in 2007, and five relevant bills in 2009 — for  total of 12 bills relating to state-level enforcement of immigration laws.

There were a total of four votes that I would characterize as “incorrect” votes, including one bill that he sponsored.  However, as noted above, the bill he sponsored in 2005 did not attempt to create any enforcement mechanism or penalties.  Therefore, it is not in quite the same category as the later bills sponsored by Jim Shockley and others.

In the 2007 session, Jesse Laslovich was a swing vote that killed SB 258, which would deny state licenses and license renewal to “illegal aliens.”  This was a 25-25 vote.

In the 2009 session, which was Jesse Laslovich’s last session in the Senate, he played an important role on the Senate Judiciary Committee as several of Jim Shockley’s anti-immigrant bills were debated.

I’ll let Shahid’s work speak for itself, but it highlights one of the key challenges in this race: while Laslovich has a very public legislative record, it’s much more difficult to see where Ms. Bucy stands on issues, not because of any obfuscation on her part, but simply because of the jobs she’s held.  A couple of well-researched posts like these offer invaluable insight into the values and priorities of the candidates and are well worth your time.

This is rich. One of the Republican candidates for Secretary of State, Scott Aspenlieder, desperate to get his name in the newspaper is claiming that there is a “failure of leadership” at the Secretary of State’s office because two unnamed voters in Yellowstone County did not receive primary ballots for each party and because a county elections official in Broadwater County efficiently corrected an error while professionally doing her job.

John Adams reports in the Great Falls Tribune that this eminently unqualified Republican wants an audit of the entire absentee ballot system in Montana because of these errors. Along the way, he attacked Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, because that’s what candidates desperate to get attention do.

Unfortunately, as Adams notes, the county election official disagrees. She told the Tribune that the state had no involvement in the error:

Broadwater County election officer Rhonda Nelson said the error on the 11th precinct ballot was between her office and the private contractor who printed and mailed the ballots.

“There was no state involvement in this error,” Nelson said. “There was nothing that the state should have done or could have done differently. The error was entirely between the software company and my office.”

Now, this is certainly not the first time a Republican running for office will let facts get in the way of a little publicity for a campaign. It’s also unsurprising coming from Aspenlieder, who opened his campaign by attacking public employees and teachers, along with people who live in Montana’s rural communities.

It’s just sad that Republican candidates can’t come up with a positive agenda for Montana’s future. Hell, Patty Lovaas might actually be the best Republican candidate in this field.

Update: Of course, it’s hard to blame Aspenlieder, given that media accounts don’t even list him as as a candidate.

Please click HERE for a more updated post on the negative piece that was mailed out on behalf of McKinnon’s campaign.

Not a lot of attention is paid to Montana’s Supreme Court races.

In the three-way match-up between Laurie McKinnon, Ed Sheehy,  and Elizabeth Best, a lot of voters are probably at a loss as to who to vote for.  At this point, I’d say Best is most likely to win this race due to her visibility and campaign war chest.  I’d also say that Sheehy is most likely to come in second.

That hasn’t stopped McKinnon from going negative.

No doubt many readers’ mailboxes are filling up with campaign literature – a lot of it is just tossed in the trash.  However, one piece that has caught some attention is McKinnon’s recent “return your absentee ballots” mailer, which attacks both Sheehy and Best.

Please note that the highlights and underline are part of the mailer.

McKinnon attacks Sheehy and Best for being partisan Democrats; Sheehy, specifically, for suing the State of Montana to prevent the death penalty from being used in a particular case; and Best, specifically, for filing a lawsuit aimed at mitigating global warming.

It goes without saying that this attack piece is not very inspiring.

Winner: Cell Phone Carriers AND TRADITIONAL PHONE COMPANIES

It was a big week for phone companies in Montana as both the Bucy and Miller campaigns violated state law with a series of robocalls across the state. The Miller approach was far more egregious, as the candidate called 100,000 numbers across the state, including reporters, liberal bloggers, and the Commissioner of Political Practices.

Miller’s move was desperate, something fit for a candidate with little chance of winning.

WINNER: SATIRICAL TWITTER ACCOUNTS

Dustin Hurst’s unusual take on reporting did inspire at least two Twitter accounts worth following, @DirtybagDustin and @TheTruthHurst.

LOSER: NEIL LIVINSTONE

He promised bold leadership to grow Montana’s economy…at the same pace it has been growing for months…and his running mate decried his nonsensical, offensive war rhetoric. Just another week in the life of super spy Neil Livingstone.

WINNER: JON TESTER

Senator Tester may not have gone as far as I would prefer when it comes to marriage equality, but his position supporting civil unions is a step in the right direction. While similar to the position taken by Steve Bullock last week, Tester was more explicit about his support for equality.

LOSER: WHAT’s LEFT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MONTANA GOP

While I have to credit Republican Party  executive director Bowen Greenwood for his honesty, it’s hard to be terribly excited about someone mounting a write-in campaign for Clerk of the Supreme Court for purely political reasons. In his announcement e-mail, Greenwood said he was running because “Republicans should care about this effort. As a voter is marking his or her ballot, the tendency is to keep voting the same party all the way down the ticket, unless something breaks the chain.”

The truth is that Ed Smith, the long-serving Supreme Court Clerk, is eminently qualified and should keep his position Greenwood has no experience relevant for the position—and his nakedly partisan reasons for running are a clear indication that his write-in campaign shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Do you ever wonder what Ryan Zinke was thinking when he hitched his political future to Neil Livingstone’s wobbly cart? We’re talking about someone who was seen as a series Republican contender for the governor’s chair in his own right just a year ago but who’s now found himself in the awkward position of having to walk back inflammatory rhetoric from the top of the ticket.

On his Facebook page today, Zinke posted:

Waging War on Environmental Groups. A number of friends and colleagues have expressed concern with our campaigns choice of words in saying we are going to "wage war against environmental groups ". Point well taken. To those who have served and know the horror of war, the term is misplaced.

While Zinke would like to suggest that their “war” rhetoric was some sort of slip of the tongue, it’s been the dominant message of the Livingstone campaign for months. On February 27, Livingstone told a Republican candidate forum in Great Falls that Montana needs “to go to war with the radical environmentalists.”

On March 8, the Billings Outpost said that Livingstone was prepared to go to war with the federal government:

But Mr. Livingstone did say that he was prepared as governor to arrest federal officials who tried to enforce federal regulations (as opposed to acts of Congress). They probably would be released within three hours but, he said, “We will have made a statement, and we will go to war with the federal government.

Zinke’s retraction for Livingstone, while well-intended, seems awfully late.

Of course, Livingstone’s not alone in his use of the rhetoric of warfare. Rick Hill, who’s never opposed sending other people to fight his wars, also plans to go war against environmentalists:

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill of Helena also condemned the “trial lawyers and environmentalists” whose regulatory bearing he said is preventing Montana from unleashing its economic potential.

“I intend to go to war with the environmentalists and simplify our regulatory structure,” he said. “Serial lawsuits and state regulators are obstructionists when they should be trying to facilitate these projects.”

Of course Zinke is right. War is a terrible metaphor for what these armchair combatants intend to do. The language demonizes their opponents and trivializes the sacrifices of members of the armed forces, many of who have fought and continuing to fight today.