At the start of their general election campaign, Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock has more than six times the money in the bank than does his Republican opponent, former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill, in their race for governor.
To Read Article:
Now why isn’t someone questioning more about where he gets his funding? What about Lobbyists? What about Prison Corporations? What about the Unions that are affiliated with law enforcement and officers. Matter of fact what about any of the people that make money from incarcerating as many citizens as they can? He condemns corporations funding Republicans but what about Bullock, a Democrat? A Democrat that is bragging about how much money that he is reeling in. Well, let me re-think that, maybe it’s the media and all the cohorts that are bragging about all the money that he has reeled in. I really don’t care for corporations, unions or any other large organizations that can far out donate the regular Joe. But I’m not in charge and this is not about me.
HELENA, Mont. — State leaders immediately condemned a U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday as politically motivated after the justices voted 5-4 to strike down Montana‘s century-old restrictions on some corporate political spending, and officials looked ahead to more battles over campaign finance laws.
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock called the nation’s high court just “another political body” after it overturned a law Monday originally enacted in the early 1900s by state voters upset with the influence of wealthy mine owners.
U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican challenging U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in 2012, lauded aspects of the decision as embracing constitutional protections of free speech for everyone including political parties and businesses. But he also said laws should now be enacted that provide stricter reporting requirements — a statement that puts him at odds with the other cases brought by ATP that bucks state reporting requirements.
“Instead of trying to silence political dissent, let’s focus on improving transparency and creating stricter reporting requirements,” Rehberg said. “There’s no excuse for letting powerful special interest groups exert influence on our elections from behind a veil of secrecy and anonymity.”
Tester bashed the high court’s decision.
“Today’s ruling is an endorsement of secret spending and the backward notion that corporations somehow have the same constitutional rights as American citizens,” Tester said. “We don’t believe that in Montana. We believe that people and their ideas — not corporations and their money — influence elections.”
“What they are saying is that Montana for 100 years has had clean elections, but they would prefer us to run our elections with dirty, secret corporate, foreign money. What could go wrong?” Schweitzer said.
- Oh, I beg to differ sir. Montana has not had clean elections for 100 years, I haven’t yet seen anything clean about how this state is operated. Even the State Integrity failed Montana. ”Despite a reputation for open government, Montana has ambiguous ethics laws, weak disclosure requirements, and inconsistent enforcement.” Read more from SII State Reporter Dennis Swibold. We don’t have open government.
- Read Montana’s Report Card: http://www.stateintegrity.org/montana
- There is nothing clean about that, Governor Schweitzer. Who went to foreign countries like China about pigs here in Montana? How do we know that there is not foreign money going into Bullocks campaign? Just too much secrecy and a lot of double talk to try to confuse Montanans.
- Again, the attitude with AG Steve Bullock seems to be that he does not have respect for the Supreme Court. To call the high court just “another political body” ..well, then again the DOJ in Montana seems to have that attitude. Too many believe and act that they are above the law.
- Senator Jon Tester bashed the high courts decision. ”People and their ideas influence elections?” So the lobbyists for Montana DOJ and the Unions are just regular people with their own ideas. The record shows clearly and plainly that someone higher than the regular Joe is influencing the ideas and the elections.
- This one statement I agree with: ”Instead of trying to silence political dissent, let’s focus on improving transparency and creating stricter reporting requirements,” Rehberg said. “There’s no excuse for letting powerful special interest groups exert influence on our elections from behind a veil of secrecy and anonymity.”
Both parties should be proclaiming this. Both parties receive money from large sources. Let’s get real here. Transparency is needed in both parties. What is wrong with that?