Senator Tester, on NPR’s All Things Considered, today:

“Well, I think corporations are a whole lot different than people. I don’t know corporations that can be put in prison. I do know people that can be put in prison. I mean, it’s a totally different entity. I don’t think the forefathers envisioned when this country was setup that we would have corporations that had the same rights or more rights than people…

“It’s ridiculous and it’s not what our forefathers sought and it really goes against our democracy. It goes against what this country is built upon.”

Representative Rehberg, after cashing his $10,000 check from the group that wants to turn multinational corporations into people:

Paints a pretty striking contrast, doesn’t it?

Surely Montana newspapers have to report that Rehberg took money from Citizens United, right?

Not only is Representative Rehberg championing the right of corporations to pollute Montana politics, he’s benefiting financially from those who were responsible for the Supreme Court decision to allow limitless, secret corporate contributions to campaigns:

In a news release, Tester’s campaign will point out that Rehberg accepted a $10,000 donation from the conservative group Citizens United, the plaintiff in the controversial Supreme Court decision, on Sept. 21.  Tester believes that decision “undermines democracy” and supports overturning it through a constitutional amendment.

For 100 years, Montana has protected its political process from the pernicious influence of corporations. We saw firsthand the dangers corporate control of politics as people like William Clark bought their way into the US Senate, using corporate wealth to fuel his rise to power.

A century later, Montana has a candidate for the Senate who is not only advocating an ahistorical “right” for corporations to access the Bill of Rights and undermine Montana law, but taking money from the very corporate interests responsible for this absurd Supreme Court decision.

Representative Rehberg was wrong. Montanans have been right on this issue for 100 years.

Rehberg certainly hasn’t been shy about promoting constitutional amendments for frivolous, political causes. Surely he should support one, like Jon Tester and Max Baucus do, that would actually protect the integrity of our political process.

Senator Tester and Senator Baucus are standing up for Montana’s law and the relatively obvious idea that free speech rights attach to people, not multinational corporations, reports KXLH’s Marnee Banks.

Representative Rehberg, on the other hand, likes the idea of massive corporate polluting the electoral process:

Congressman Denny Rehberg won’t support the amendment. He says a healthy democracy is made up of many voices.

“I don’t think we should deny people their Constitutional right to free speech just because they’re part of a corporation instead of a different form of organization like a non-profit, a campaign or a union,” Rehberg says.

It’s probably not too difficult to understand why Rehberg feels this way, give the reciprocal love he enjoys with corporations of all kinds.

In another note, Rehberg claimed that he believed that “all campaign contributions should be posted online within 24 hours.”

Well, then, Mr. Rehberg, why don’t you do it? It seems that a man who believes in transparency and immediate disclosure of campaign contributions should the lead and start doing it.

Highlighting some of the most interesting and provocative posts in the past week at Montana blogs.

D Gregory Smith pointed out, that despite constantly talking about his availability to Montanans, Representative Rehberg has been awfully unwilling to meet with them lately.

Montana Cowgirl found it interesting that Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill would depict himself as someone who struggled as a single father, given the reasons he became one.

I’m not sure that I agree with much of anything Ed Berry says, but I wonder if he’s right that far right conservatives will not support Representative Rehberg because of his support of the Defense Authorization Act and HR 1505.

Rob Natelson managed to blame liberals for the Citizens United decision. It’s really a conservative jurisprudence must-read.

Barb Rush showed once again why she should not ever be elected to the School Board.

Over here, I kept yammering on about Representative Rehberg’s continued dishonesty about Pell Grants, new poster Winston wondered why campaign web sites weren’t in better shape, and Gabriel Furshong argued for the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.

In announcing his bid for the U.S. Senate Erik Iverson Dennis Rehberg offered this fascinating condemnation of Jon Tester and comparison between himself and a Republican hero:

He said the federal debt has almost doubled since Tester became a senator in 2007, that Tester voted for the 2009 economic-stimulus bill that "was a government solution that did not work," and was the deciding vote for the 2010 federal health-reform law that isn’t working, either.

Rehberg also compared the 2012 election to the 1980 campaign of Republican Ronald Reagan against President Jimmy Carter, when Reagan said he was running against the philosophy of "if it moves, tax it; if it still moves, regulate it, and when it finally quits moving, subsidize it."

No commentary, just some facts in response:

• The Bush tax cuts, which Rehberg voted for are responsible for 27% of the debt accumulated since 2001.
• The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Representative Rehberg voted for will end up costing at least $3.7 trillion dollars.
• Representative Rehberg received the most pork projects on any member of the House in 2010.
• The federal budget deficit was higher under Ronald Reagan every year than it was under Jimmy Carter.

Why is the United States facing a fiscal crisis? Not the programs Representative Rehberg wants to blame, not Jon Tester’s votes. The fiscal crisis is the direct result of eight years of reckless tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and wars that the President Bush and Representative Rehberg refused to pay for.

It’s certainly reasonable for Representative Rehberg to make a case that he will better represent Montana in Washington than Senator Tester at some level, but for the Representative to lecture anyone about fiscal responsibility is about as appropriate as him lecturing someone about responsible drinking.

it’s because it’s newsworthy that a member of the Senate lives a life like an ordinary American—and because he loves his Montana beef:

An evening around their table is informal (dinner is served family style and everyone clears his or her own plate) and amusing, with the conversation veering from President Obama’s jobs bill to the benefits of local honey to the type of gun best used to eliminate pigeons or deer.

While many Washington wives like to make the dinner party scene and attend spouse lunches on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Tester spends most of her time tending the farm back home. There is harvesting and plowing in the spring and beating back the snow in the winter. In the summer she cans tomatoes and puts up pickles (“Jon eats them like candy”) and choke cherries, though last year those flooded out.

Even though I’m a vegetarian, it’s hard not to admire someone who has certainly remained true to his Montana roots in Washington, even it means eating what sounds like a somewhat unhealthy amount of beef.

When Dennis Rehberg makes the New York Times, it’s for selling his votes to the mining industry and voting to increase the lead in children’s toys.

Just a thought.

The Montana Democratic Party has issued an official complaint against Congressman Rehberg for abusing taxpayer money.

Recently, Representative Rehberg’s congressional office sent out this mailer. A quick glance and it’s pretty clear that tax payer money should not have been used to print and mail Rehberg’s response to this campaign.

Maybe Developer Denny was just trying to get creative since he keeps losing the fundraising battle to Sen. Tester.

Senator Tester’s office just sent out a blast email with “An update on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.” I’m sure many readers just received the same email. The email kicks off with the following:

Negotiators are discussing the possibility of including the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in one of the last bills Congress will consider this year.

As you may know, the bill was included as part of a Senate proposal going into these final negotiations. But it needs support from the House of Representatives to cross the finish line.

My message to the them: Don’t let politics drag down this important, made-in-Montana jobs plan.

Sen. Tester is clearly calling out Developer Denny and his opposition to FJRA. And he’s backing Rehberg into a corner. Either Rehberg supports FJRA and helps deliver a major legislative victory for Tester or he opposes FJRA and further solidifies his reputation as someone who always puts politics first.

Developer Denny is one slippery politician. It will be interesting to see how he spins this one.

While thousands of Montanans are facing the prospect of losing their local post offices, Representative Dennis Rehberg simply isn’t interested in doing his job and helping them, as Mike Dennison notes in today’s Missoulian:

Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican, is not committing yet to any specific bill or legislative solution, saying he wants to work with USPS "to find a workable solution that we can live all live with," to avoid unnecessary closures.

To be fair, Rehberg has been quite consumed by politicizing a statue of Jesus on federal land, but to do nothing but talk when rural Montana risk losing local mail service and all Montanans face slower, less efficient delivery, hurting small businesses and costing jobs, is beyond the Rehbergian norm for inaction.

It’s instructive to contrast Rehberg’s inaction with his rhetoric. Just two months ago, he told Montanans that preserving postal service was critical:

…rural states like Montana should not be asked to shoulder more than our fair share of sacrifice.  I am extremely concerned that the proposed closure of over 90 offices in the state unfairly impacts rural residents.  The distance between our towns and cities, the unpredictable nature of our weather, and the needs of our businesses and senior citizens to receive both packages and medication in a timely manner all factor into why a town’s local post office serves as a vital link to the rest of the state and the country.

I’d say something “vital” to the economic and physical health of our neighbors is worth more than vague promises issued in pro forma press releases. It’s time for Representative Rehberg to do something. Anything.

It’s only worse when one remembers that Representative Rehberg helped create this problem when he and the Republican-controlled Congress created the USPS’s fiscal crisis in 2006.

So what about Senators Baucus and Tester? Working for Montanans:

On Friday, Baucus and Tester and 16 other Democrats sent a letter to Senate leadership asking Congress to include language in an appropriation bill to postpone any USPS closures for at least six months. The moratorium would give Congress a chance to pass reform to help the Postal Service solve its financial woes.

Baucus also has introduced a bill that would return the $7 billion retirement surplus to the USPS, as well as forbid closure of any post office that is more than 10 miles away from another post office.

Words are cheap, Representative Rehberg. How about rolling up your sleeves and putting in some work to protect Montana’s rural communities and businesses?

Today’s Montana Chamber of Commerce/Market Research Insight certainly contains some numbers that can’t make the Rehberg team feel very confident.

In a poll that consisted of 49% Republican voters and 32% Democratic voters, Senator Tester is leading Representative Rehberg 42-37.

A five point gap is well just outside the poll’s margin of error, but given the demographics, the numbers represent a real potential challenge for the subdivision rancher from Billings.

Perhaps spending the first year of a Senate campaign suing the largest state, alienating your base with federal land grabs, and writing legislation that would lead to poisoned children’s toys isn’t a good idea after all.