Candidate Steve Bullock doing what he does best. Crying foul or charging someone for something, of course unless it is his own people. When it is his office then he is suddenly quiet. After watching the debate in Kalispell it was apparent when he uses that lawyer snake oil salesman voice to attack as if he was already trying to beat down someone in court, stooping to a level not fitting for a Governor. The level that many Montanans have feared as it has been used on them in a system that has become very corrupt. Steve Bullock was not acting like a potential Governor when he broke the debate rules by hiding notes in the podium at their first debate in Helena. Clearly it is only when Steve Bullock can act as if he is in a court trying to sell something by trying to be intimidating that he can he pull this off. How is a Governor going to go around acting like that in order to get something accomplished? Is he going to attack everyone? Is he going to accuse everyone of being a criminal if they seem to be going against his grain?
Is this the kind of jobs that he is planning on creating? More jobs for Montana DOJ and Montana DOC? And Mr.Bullock we do have concern about the future of our children and where Montana stands in the years ahead of us. It is not about being negative, it is about being realistic! We need someone that can bring all Montanans into better living by opening up new doors by bringing business to everyone, not just adding more pay to state jobs leaving out the rest of the sector in Montana. Not just for Unions working in building jails or prisons for profit. Everyone needs to be included in Montana’s future for a better economy.
Also, let it be noted, not once has the Bullock or the Bucy campaign addressed the issue on “Why does Montana have the highest level of incarceration rates than any other state around us?” We ask these two as they are the ones that have been in this office.
His office has been very good at having some Montanans believe that his office does ”no wrong” very cleverly pointing fingers at everyone else to keep eyes directed off of him.
http://montanacorruption.org/2012/06/28/governor-schweitzer-attorney-general-steve-bullock-did-the-sky-fall/ Funny that Steve Bullock was accusing Rick Hill of being “Chicken Little” and the “sky falling.”
After Larry Jent dropped his bid for governor Steve Bullock was in a tight spot. According to Montana campaign finance law if there is no contested primary Bullock would be required to give back all of the money he raised for the primary. Good thing he convinced Heather Margolis to run!
According to the Helena Independent Record:
“She was asked about her husband, Tim Warner, a former spokesman for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus and later Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana who now runs a consulting firm in Helena, donating $600 to Bullock’s governor’s campaign, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. She didn’t answer the question, but instead talked about Bullock.” (So, in the debate Bullock rants at Hill about him taking money from the insurance as a paycheck when he worked for them, yet Bullock takes money from the same source for his campaign. Kinda the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?)
But her husband donating isn’t the problem here,
SHE HERSELF DONATED TO BULLOCK!!!
Her reasoning for running was that there was:
“a clear decisive moment” last week when she decided to run.
Sounds like Bullock called her up and convinced her to enter the race so he could keep his money to me. And lets be honest the Democrats aren’t fooling anyone here we all know why she is in the race, and yet the Democrats are still trying to mislead Montanan voters. But Bullocks no stranger to violating campaign laws, he has been since his campaign began by collecting contributions for undeclared office. This is just another example of how Bullock as current Attorney General, the chief legal advisor for the state, has violated the laws he was sworn to uphold. And exactly why putting him in charge of the state is a bad idea.
Steve Bullocks “fight” against citizens united makes numerous appearances on his website and has become the central theme to his campaign. Which is a great talking point, he can make it seem like he is making a difference and “fighting corruption” but this fight has already been fought both in Citizens United and in an Arizona case (McComish v. Bennett). What’s really going on here is not a valiant fight against corruption, but a pointless misuse of taxpayer money and resources. Bullock’s Supreme Court Brief is a 40-page brief that took a long time to research and put together costing thousands of man-hours. Hours spent by highly paid attorneys.
Citizens United held that under the first amendment independent political broadcasts couldn’t be limited. Nevermind that Steve Bullock has received THOUSANDS from out of state corporations including Microsoft, Home Depot, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Numerous others.
The text from the law in question, the 1912 Montana Corrupt Practices act, is almost a word for word carbon copy of what the supreme court ruled already less than three years ago with only one different justice. Not that it would matter considering that the justice missing John Paul Stevens was of the dissenting opinion. So ALL of the majority opinion justices are STILL on the Supreme Court The law states:
BULLOCK DONOR AND ANOTHER SCHWEITZER APPOINTEE RESIGNS OVER CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS
This story is shocking (yet not surprising) for two reasons. Gallik becomes the second Schweitzer appointee in less than a year to resign from office over allegations of corruption. Last year former Director of the Department of Transportation, Jim Lynch, resigned after charges that he broke Montana’s nepotism laws. Also, Gallik has been a donor to Steve Bullock’s campaign, which presented a case of clear corruption itself. Steve Bullock began illegally raising money to campaign for Governor last year. When charges were brought against Bullock for campaign violations, Gallik quickly dismissed the charges against Bullock.
It seems that the Supremes court ruling in Citizens United Vs. FEC has been all over the news, especially now that current Attorney General Steve Bullock has decided to make it his number one campaign issue. But it seems that a lot of people have the wrong idea about what the Citizens United decision allows, and the effect it will have.
The first misconception is that it will allow corporations to “buy” elections, which is totally not true. The FEC still has contribution maximums even from corporations.
The Decision of the Court may have put it best:
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
This ruling is about government intervening in what are, and are not allowed to be told and who is and who isn’t allowed to give us that information. If we hope to avoid an Orwellian dystopia perhaps we should be less worried about censoring the message and more worried about educating our children to be intelligent consumers of information.
To Continue Reading: http://www.treasurestatepolitics.com/2012/02/defense-citizens-united/
So, with Steve Bullock receiving THOUSANDS from out of state corporations including Microsoft, Home Depot, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Numerous others. He now wants to accuse Candidate Rick Hill of criminal activities even going as far as possibly pressing charges.
According to the Helena Independent Record:
The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Steve Bullock, cried foul Wednesday. The Bullock campaign filed a complaint with the state political practices commissioner accusing Hill’s campaign of breaking the law.
It said Hill’s campaign took the $500,000 from the Republican Party, despite having already accepted the maximum allowable contribution of $22,600 from the party.
“It is absolutely incredible,” said Bullock’s campaign manager, Kevin O’Brien. “I think Hill will go to any level, including committing crimes, to win. This is Watergate level.”
According to the San Franciso Chronicle:
Lovell’s ruling only briefly prevented the commissioner from enforcing the campaign contribution limits, and it didn’t give candidates the right to accept such donations, Bullock said. Violation of state election laws is a misdemeanor crime.
“It shows that he’s going to go to any level, including taking illegal contributions, to win the election,” Bullock said of Hill. “This is a serious violation. It’s a $500,000 violation of Montana’s laws. There certainly could be implications beyond the election.”
Oh Please! Seriously? This is unbelievable. So a man (Attorney General Steve Bullock) who has been in violation several times of state election laws, who has raised thousands of dollars from large corporations, who yet again with another newly appointed Commissioner of Political Practices Jim Murry (because the others were found corrupt) is going to handle this? What a tangled web we weave. If you are still believing this game that they are playing then read this.
This money was clearly given to Rick Hill during the time frame that Judge Lovell ruled that it was legal.
According to the Helena Independent Record:
Hill’s campaign manager Brock Lowrance defended the donation, saying the campaign had done nothing wrong in accepting the GOP donation during the six-day window.
“The judge said it was legal,” Lowrance said. “We relied on that. It’s consistent with the order of a sitting federal judge. There should be no surprise the Montana Republican Party is supporting the Republican nominee for governor.”
The Hill campaign manager said Bullock had “created a straw-man primary opponent so he could skirt the rules and raise more money,” while the Hill campaign “walked into the general election with a severe disadvantage.”
Here’s the timeline for court decisions about Montana’s campaign contribution limits:
• Oct. 3: U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena strikes down Montana’s dollar limits on campaign contributions to state candidates. The decision allows unlimited donations in state political races. State Justice Department asks Lovell and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay or block the effect of decision while state appeals it the Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Oct. 4: Montana Republican Party writes $500,000 check to its candidate for governor, Rick Hill.
• Oct. 9: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign donations limit and tells Lovell it needs to see his decision so it can review the case. That ends the six-day window for unlimited donations.
• Oct. 10: Lovell issues 38-page legal conclusion that backs up his earlier decision.
• Oct. 16: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals puts a hold on Lovell’s decision and allows Montana’s state campaign limits to stay in place at least through the Nov. 6 election.
At least through November 6th? Can someone answer if these judges are Republican or Democrat? It should be bi-partisan. Are these Judges who Steve Bullock goes through regularly when he needs something? And I guess it never mattered what the Supreme Courts ruling was, I mean surely they don’t know better, just thought that should be thrown in the mix.
Does anyone else think that Steve Bullock is having a tantrum because he was use to bragging that he had more money in his pot? He thought he had this election himself in a hand basket? Literally, being given to him by out of state donors, large corporations, strong arming someone else to run for the Democratic ticket so he would not have to return his money? Too many of us are tired of these double standards. It has been shown that Bullocks office will do anything as you see in all of the links to run this state the way that HE wants to and in order to get elected. In a way that does what is best for him and not necessarily for the good of all Montanans. That is scary, wake up Montana.